[0:56] Yeah. So, we'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. Uh, we'll start with

[1:00] the pledge of allegiance. Rick, would you mind leading us in the pledge?

[1:07] I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[1:13] republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:19] justice for all. >> Thank you, Rick.

[1:27] » Lan, if you could take the role, please. >> Hodkin,

[1:30] » present. Ken Owens, >> here.

[1:34] Matthew Shore >> present.

[1:36] » Mary Sanders >> here. Laura

[1:38] » present. >> Excellent. Uh item four, amendments to

[1:42] the agenda and declaration of conflict exparte contacts and site visits.

[1:49] None here.

[1:53] Just like that, we're on number five. Uh action item. This is the consent

[1:57] calendar approval. We live. >> Mayor and council. Before you on the

[2:01] consent calendar is the regular council minutes of July 22nd, 2026, the regular

[2:06] and special bills as presented in the packet and the acceptance of

[2:10] infrastructure and utility easement for the Westwood apartment.

[2:16] » Council, any questions?

[2:21] » How about a motion? >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion

[2:23] that we approve the consent calendar as read.

[2:27] » Made a second. >> Second. Ken seconded

[2:31] and Loran if you take the role. >> Larry Sanders.

[2:34] » Yes. >> Ken Owens.

[2:35] » Yes. >> Laura F.

[2:37] » Hi. >> Matthew.

[2:39] » Yes. Right. Consent calendar approved. Uh visitor comments. An opportunity to

[2:44] address concerns. No formal action allowed. 3minut time limit per issue.

[2:48] Issues may be placed on a subsequent agenda. Uh as a reminder, no public

[2:53] comments may be made on land use items. Land use items include any item relating

[2:57] to a specific land use application or process that is governed by state code.

[3:05] Is there anybody that would like to Yes, sir.

[3:17] » My my concern is mainly the water. >> Oh, sorry, sir. Would you mind stating

[3:21] your name and address for the >> Oh, I'm sorry. Bob Granger. I live at

[3:24] 14592 North Parkway Street, Rather. >> Thank you, Bob.

[3:29] » Uh, I purchased my home in 1978. We raised two children. Until recently,

[3:35] I've never had any low water pressure until recently.

[3:39] And now in the mornings, my water pressure is probably half or less than

[3:44] what it normally is. and

[3:48] loss of pressure is a direct result of this city council rubber stamping every

[3:52] development plan across their desk. Approvals are granted without any

[3:57] consideration to our infrastructure. And a question I have, can anyone here

[4:02] tell me how many homes or apartments have been approved that have not been

[4:07] built yet? Does anybody have a number for that?

[4:14] Typically, we don't question an answer during this time, but if Laura is

[4:17] willing to answer, >> uh, including single family homes

[4:24] and apartments and, uh, duplexes,

[4:30] it's around 1,500. >> Okay, we've already got a low water

[4:34] pressure and these homes haven't been built. What's going to happen to our

[4:38] water pressure when they get built? I'm real concerned about that.

[4:43] Uh, and I don't believe that approving more

[4:48] buildings is going to improve that water system. The aquifer is a finite source

[4:53] and is already had been taxed to the max. Everybody in the area, every city

[4:57] around here uses it and, you know, it's going to run out. I mean, we're we're

[5:02] going to have no water at all. My suggestion is a moratorium on any new

[5:07] construction if the solutions to the existing problem is rectified. Council

[5:11] needs to start doing the job they were elected to do. Looking out for the

[5:14] residents of Rather and not the rich developers,

[5:23] you know, and and what's next? Overcrowded schools or septic system at

[5:27] a cost of millions of dollars? We already have residents whose homes are

[5:31] paid for but fear losing them due to increased taxes. We need solutions to

[5:35] our overburdened infrastructures, not more construction. Put your personal

[5:40] agendas aside and do the job you elected to do. Start looking out for the

[5:44] residents of Rafter. Thank you. >> Thank you, B.

[5:50] » Is there anyone else?

[6:00] Hi, my name is Michelle Fuljam. Um, I reside in Spokane. Uh, but I'm a land

[6:05] use attorney and I practice here in Cland in Coupney County for 34 years. My

[6:11] land use practice, I represent developers, neighbors, property rights

[6:16] groups, HOAs. I've represented cities. I was the legal counsel for the Coupney

[6:22] County Board of Commissioners doing their land use litigation. I have a

[6:26] variety of perspectives on land use law over the past three decades. I'm here on

[6:31] behalf of my client Hayden Holmes to assert two legal objections to the

[6:35] proposed moratorum. The first legal objection is that it's a violation of

[6:39] Idaho code 67-6523.

[6:44] Raft's moratorium would be void and uninforcable for failure to meet the

[6:49] required showing of imminent peril. Idaho code 67-6523

[6:56] governs the authority of local governments to impose development

[6:59] moratoriums, but it's required to show and factually support imminent peril to

[7:07] the public health, safety, and welfare. Typically that imminent peril is shown

[7:13] through with Hower Lake, with Spirit Lake, with those moratoriums. It was

[7:19] DEEQ findings of contaminated water in the lake, pollution, runoff, untreated

[7:27] site disturbance um from imperous surfaces were contaminating the lake.

[7:32] And that EQ scientific finding is what was the basis. Same with the really

[7:36] famous Sierra Tahoe case. Lake Tahoe was polluted. The contaminants were tested

[7:42] and the untreated development runoff, no storm water mitigation was causing

[7:46] imminent peril to the health, safety, welfare of the citizens due to the lake

[7:50] contaminants. We don't have that here. We don't have anything like that

[7:54] scientific showing. Um the JUB analysis has shown reasonable alternative um

[8:02] options for your water supply, your water storage issues. Additional tank

[8:06] storage, additional well supply. Your own city engineer has indicated

[8:11] conservation is a method. You have all these other tools for water supply

[8:16] issues being resolved before you jump to moratorum. So a moratorium would be

[8:21] unlawful because of a lack of imminent peril. That gives rise to the second

[8:26] objections a regulatory taking which would require compensation.

[8:31] Government regulation that deprivives a property owner of all or of

[8:35] substantially all economically beneficial use constitutes a taking and

[8:42] it requires compensation. And that's what would happen here is that the

[8:46] property owners would deprived of economically beneficial use of their

[8:51] development land and the city would owe compensation. Thank you.

[8:57] » Thank you, Michelle.

[9:10] Hello, my name is Joe Nunu and I live over in Radiant Lake

[9:17] and um [snorts] I noticed the water pressure dropping.

[9:23] I have sprinkler heads across my 7500T lawn and I've seen those sprinkler heads

[9:30] not pop up. Okay, this has been going on.

[9:37] I monitor the water. I've worked I was a former BP of the

[9:43] Radiant Lake HOA Association. I also had projects to

[9:51] reclaim sand. So, I'm not a lawyer.

[9:58] I don't speak mumbo jumbo. I'm talking to you directly.

[10:04] The water pressure is low and uh

[10:10] you've got to really take a look at everything.

[10:14] I used to live in California and uh and I'm familiar with Lake Tahoe

[10:22] and they have problems in Lake Tahoe keeping that water clean, that lake

[10:26] clean. It's an overgrowth. It's overpop populating. I no longer vacation over

[10:32] there. So, uh, that's all I have to say and thank you for your attention.

[10:36] » Thank you, Joe. Joe, can I just ask a quick question? Has the city been out to

[10:40] measure the water pressure at your property?

[10:44] » Uh, no. But, uh, I can tell from the sprinkler heads that pop [clears throat]

[10:49] up around the neighborhood, they're not popping up as high as they used to. And,

[10:54] uh, that's all I have to say.

[10:57] » Yeah. And I'll I'll I'll we'll talk more later during our topic on this, but

[11:01] thank you so much for your feedback. Yes, ma'am.

[11:10] » My name is Chris Paulus. I've been here since 1977

[11:16] and um I don't have any personal water issues. However,

[11:23] what do you all think is going to happen when you keep building

[11:27] and building and building and building and taxpayer is now paying for all the

[11:33] extra roads, the extra schools, the extra everything for all the people that

[11:39] have increased our area 50%. in five years.

[11:46] So the other lady I I agree with the first person that was up here,

[11:51] everything he said. And the other lady said, "Well, we could always just uh

[11:58] um cut back on our water use." And I'm thinking, you know, I've been here a

[12:04] long time and why should I suffer?

[12:08] because somebody else needs to make a whole lot of money and they're not

[12:13] paying attention to my needs. So, I guess uh just as a person who's

[12:21] been here a long time, I think you all need to think about

[12:26] the excessive building we're going through. The traffic is terrible. It's

[12:31] frustrating. So, that's all I have to say.

[12:35] » Thank you, Chris.

[12:40] Sir. Yes, ma'am.

[12:46] » My name is Jessica Cargle. I live on Windshine Court in Rath here. Do you

[12:50] want my actual address? >> No, that's fine.

[12:52] » Okay. Um, I'm also the president of the North Idaho Building Contract

[12:55] Association. So, I know I'm the bad guy in the room for a lot of you people. Um,

[12:59] but I just want to speak to the idea of the greedy developer. Um because the

[13:04] reality is that a lot of the improvements, the roads and the schools

[13:07] and things that you guys see built being built are on the dime of the developer

[13:11] these days. Um impact fees are driving the prices of housing up. And I'm the

[13:16] mother of two adult children who grew up here, went to Lakeland schools who

[13:20] cannot afford a home here. So I understand infrastructure issues.

[13:23] Obviously from the building side, we definitely understand infrastructure

[13:26] issues. Um we would like to see solutions to those. One of the questions

[13:31] we have is since 2020, since this growth started, what has been done by the city

[13:35] to prepare for where we are today? And I think part of what we're dealing with is

[13:39] a lack of preparation that we can maybe look forward to do a better job in that.

[13:43] Um, if it's not imminent peril, then possibly this is a targeted solution

[13:48] type of a a need where we look at the specific areas and specific ways that we

[13:53] can address those issues. I know everybody

[13:57] here doesn't like the prairie being filled in, but the reality is our local

[14:01] economy, if we constrain the building supply, it's it's basic supply and

[14:05] demand. We constrain the supply, the demand grows higher. We're not stopping

[14:09] people from coming into this area. We're not stopping people from wanting to live

[14:12] here. What we are doing is pricing out our local young families from being able

[14:16] to stay where they grew up. And that is what we advocate for on the building

[14:21] side. We're not greedy. I if we could sit down any day and talk numbers about

[14:26] what actually goes into what is developed and how much the public

[14:29] benefits from what the developers do on their dime by the requirement of the

[14:33] city. Great. We're a community. It's growing. Understood. But

[14:38] we the anti-growth mentality of just building is bad is pricing our local

[14:44] young people out of of the dream of home ownership. And that is something we

[14:48] advocate for. So I would like you to just consider that in your decisions

[14:51] today that a moratorium may not be the answer that targeted solutions may be

[14:56] the answer to fix the infrastructure issues. But there are people who would

[15:00] like to have their kids stay here and be able to afford a home. And the more cost

[15:03] we apply to the requirements to build and the more we constrain the supply,

[15:09] the harder it's going to be for our young people to afford to stay in their

[15:12] hometown. >> Thank you.

[15:15] » Thank you. Anyone

[15:23] else? Rick.

[15:27] » Thank you. Thank you, mayor. My name is Rick Fine and I reside in Brookshshire.

[15:32] I'm the HOA president there. Uh, couple concerns.

[15:37] I'm not going to beat the dead horse about the water pressure. I'm working on

[15:41] our end where we're having problems with it. I will get Kevin a report so he

[15:46] knows exactly which zones we have that aren't even coming up. Going back to

[15:53] uh issues continuously with the water. If the we're we're blaming this person

[16:01] or we're blaming the developer, but we should be looking at that side

[16:07] because the builder is the one who comes up with the plans. And if they stop

[16:12] building all these greenways, that would save a third of the water.

[16:18] A third. And I'm having problems with keeping my grass green. And then I get a

[16:24] letter saying, "Your grass is brown." Well,

[16:29] I just showed Leon the school property that's over 8 ft tall against our fence.

[16:38] And if it catches on fire, it's going to go through the whole neighborhood. What

[16:43] they told you about it was cut today, they out and out lied to you. So you

[16:48] need to take your authority and go downstairs and say, "You lied to me. Fix

[16:54] the problem. The school is responsible for that lot. Get them to responsible to

[16:59] do it." This one is on Meer. Every time I put in a slip, they tell me that the

[17:09] developer needs to finish the whole development before they'll do it.

[17:16] It's Hayden Holmes. It's Dom Holmes. It's Architect Holmes. Who's the one

[17:21] that's finally going to put it in? I brought this to Leon's attention two

[17:27] weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, that there was a cement truck dumping slurry

[17:34] against this.

[17:38] Did anything ever get corrected on that? No, because there was another truck 2

[17:42] days ago. And until the city council gets on them and starts firing people

[17:49] because they're not doing their job, we're going to continue to have

[17:52] problems. Thank you.

[17:55] » Thanks, Rick.

[17:58] » Is there anyone else that would like to comment?

[18:05] » All right. In that case, we'll move on to item number seven, old business. This

[18:10] is an action item. Consideration of adopting of findings of imminent peril

[18:15] related to water system pressure concerns for an emergency moratorum

[18:19] ordinance. >> Mr. Mayor and council, before you on

[18:23] that uh is that item for imminent peril? There was a question that uh was not

[18:29] able to be answered in time for uh council. I got a comments out at 3:00,

[18:36] but most of the council has not had an opportunity to look at that. I kind of

[18:40] wanted to go through that real quick to help address some of the questions that

[18:44] came up. Um, first of all, there in my memo that is on the front of this, it

[18:50] talks about the uh water pressure complaints and work orders that we

[18:54] received since June of 2022. There's been 39 work orders over the

[19:00] four years. Um, >> sorry, Leon, just just so I understand.

[19:04] So, so of all of the complaints that we've gotten online, only 39 people have

[19:10] actually come to the city and said, "I have a problem. Come measure at my

[19:12] house." Is that what that is? >> Okay. So, 39 people in Rather have said,

[19:16] "I have a problem. Come read my water pressure."

[19:19] » That's correct. >> Thank you.

[19:22] » Um, there was only one reading with less than 40 PSI.

[19:27] This reading was determined to be a leak on Washington Street and the property

[19:31] owner had has repaired that leak. Um, the rest of them were over 40 PSI. I

[19:38] also broke it down by 10 PSI points for each one of them. How many were in

[19:44] there? Seven from the 40 to 49, 5 to 50 to 59, 7 to 69, 5 70 to 79, 7 80 to 89,

[19:55] and 6 90 plus PSI with one of them just stating that the pressure was good.

[20:00] » And sorry, Liam, my my eyes are horrible. Um, and I'm not sure if the

[20:05] folks that are here can see this. >> Thank you so much.

[20:13] » All [snorts] right. Trying to get that bigger.

[20:16] » Okay. Um, so that was the extent of the pressure readings. Another question is,

[20:22] has it been getting worse? Um, in 2022 we had 10. In 2023 we or sorry, in 2022

[20:29] we had two. In 2023 we had 10. In 2024 we had 11. 2025 we had 11. And in 2026

[20:38] we had five. The other part of the question was is it seasonal or when does

[20:44] it happen? Uh so I also group this by complaints by month. So the complaint

[20:50] was received in January. It's listed here as those numbers. So in January we

[20:54] had three, February we had four, March we had three, April we had three, May we

[21:01] had five, June we had 10, July we had seven, August 2, September zero, October

[21:08] 2, November zero and December zero. Um there I was surprised at the number that

[21:17] came in the January and February and March time frame cuz uh uh irrigation

[21:22] hasn't started yet but irrigation does start up in April, May, June, July and

[21:28] August. So you see a higher number of those complaints in the May, June and

[21:33] July time frame. >> Leon, sorry. Are those are those more

[21:36] recent Chris? I believe that's the entire this is the

[21:42] entire fouryear period. >> Okay. So So we don't have the data here

[21:46] to say those January, February, March if they're newer or older.

[21:50] » Yeah, we do. All of the documentation that supports these numbers are in this

[21:53] packet. >> Okay.

[21:57] » Yeah, I tried to I got this this morning [clears throat] and tried to put this

[22:02] together today. So um we also have pressure logs. So in

[22:06] 2026, we got the pressure loggers. Um those pressure loggers, whenever we get

[22:12] a complaint, we put them next to a fire hydrant next to the complaint so we can

[22:15] see what the pressure is doing uh in that area. Um there is a base pressure

[22:23] uh reading of 13 PSI. So you have to subtract the 13 from every pressure

[22:28] reading as you go through. These in demo [clears throat] are net. So, I've

[22:33] already subtracted the 13 PSI. On page one, we had a pressure reading

[22:38] on March 6th. Um, pointing out that we only did one day testing because of

[22:43] freezing concerns. If it freezes overnight, it will ruin our machine. Um,

[22:48] the lowest red pressure was 71 PSI during that time frame. On page two,

[22:55] there's a Thisman and Railway on March 6. Same reasoning why it was in hunger.

[23:01] Uh the lowest pressure reading was 41 PSI during this time frame. On page

[23:07] three is trestle and Voyager. Um the lowest pressure reading on that on April

[23:13] 14th to 15th was 67 PSI during the time frame. On Brookshshire and Railway April

[23:20] 22nd to 20 21st to 22nd the lowest reading was 40 PSI during the time

[23:26] frame. on Trestle and Voyager from April 21st to 22nd the lowest reading was 54

[23:33] PSI. on thyman and railway on May 20th to

[23:39] 21st. The lowest reading was 34 PSI during this time frame. The length of

[23:44] the time that it was below 40 PSI was approximately sorry that zoomed it out

[23:50] 24 minutes. Uh on

[23:54] Thyman and Railway on May 22nd to May 26, the lowest region was 37 PSI. The

[24:01] length of time it was below 40 PSI is approximately 2 hours from 3:30 a.m. to

[24:07] 5:30 a.m. On Simmons Street on June 16th through June 17th, the lowest reading

[24:13] was 43 PSI. And on Farley Way, July 23rd through July 24th, we had the lowest

[24:21] reading was 20 PSI during this time frame. Um, and it was approximately 3

[24:28] hours from 4:15 to 7:15 a.m. Um, we also have in the data in this

[24:36] memo, uh, questions about well pressure. So, in the sheets that we have, uh,

[24:42] which I can pull up if needed, we have three wells reported on here. Red,

[24:47] yellow, and white represent those three wells. The lowest well pressure was

[24:52] approximately 40 PSI on August 10th at 440 to 4 uh 530 at one

[25:00] well. The other low well pressure was on the same well and that was approximately

[25:05] 45 PSI on August 11th from 440 to 610 at one well. All other wells stayed above

[25:13] 50 PSI pressure from August 9th through August 11th. Our storage measurements at

[25:20] our water tower on Rather Mountain, we saw a decrease of six feet

[25:26] approximately between 3:40 p.m. and 8:40 p.m. on the 9th and the 10th. We saw a

[25:34] decrease of 16 ft from 2:45 to 7:00 a.m. on the 10th. And we saw a storage

[25:40] decrease of 15 ft decrease from 2:45 to 7 a.m. on the 11th. Every time there was

[25:47] a decrease, there was a recovery period to fill up the storage each day. The

[25:52] lowest level was 14 ft of storage capacity. The maximum capacity is 34 ft.

[25:58] I want to point out that each time that it decreased, it reinccreased back to

[26:03] the 34 ft before it decreased again. Corbin Crossing has a booster pack to

[26:10] help with pressure. So, in that booster pack report, we saw a decrease of

[26:15] pressure, which is the green line on that report, approximately 50 PSI August

[26:21] 11th from 4:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. During the two days,

[26:26] um, the volume of water pushed through that pack increased at August 10th at

[26:32] 8:00 p.m. and again on August 11th at 4:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Uh all of the

[26:40] documentation supporting those numbers is included in the packet. Uh graphs,

[26:45] measurements, work orders, emails, um are included in that packet. Um one of

[26:52] the things that we also noticed, uh Chris and I both drove around the city

[26:56] between 4:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. On Friday, Chris did it, and on Monday, I

[27:03] did it. The one of the things that I noticed during this time frame, and

[27:07] you'll see also it corresponds with the times that are listed here, is

[27:11] [clears throat] that between um 4:30 and 7:00, a majority of rather waters their

[27:17] yards. This is a major diversion of water at a a very short time frame

[27:23] within our city. Um, so we have a lot of irrigation issues. As a point of

[27:30] consideration, as driving, both Chris and I noticed

[27:34] that on the corner of Majestic Avenue and Maya Road at 4:30 in the morning,

[27:40] there was a puddle that went across the road from the island all the way to the

[27:46] swell that covered the entire road. We're not talking about wet road. We're

[27:50] talking about at least an inch of water in that area. Um,

[27:56] which brings us to look at other things. We took a look at our water usage for

[28:01] the city. Um, in June, we noticed that we had, and I'll zoom in

[28:09] on this,

[28:15] we had our top 10 water users. Uh the Birkshshire HOA in June was our

[28:22] highest user at 4,799,000

[28:26] uh gallons watering 9.5 acres of common space. That's approximately 505,000

[28:34] gallons per acre. Um the conservation method is 1 in of

[28:40] water per week per acre for the month. If you were to put that in to

[28:47] Brookshshire's acreage, you would use 1,31,000

[28:52] gallons. Uh, so that number is there for all of

[28:55] these others as well. The Golden Spikes Estates, this is just their irrigation

[29:00] line. They used 5.8. Sorry, that numbers I did not sort these

[29:06] numbers very well. That's a higher use in the Brook Golden Spikes than the

[29:11] Brookshshire. Um the Westwood Property Owners, which

[29:16] is the homeowners association on the corner of Majestic and Meyer, they also

[29:22] do uh green space along the road as well. So they have 3 meters. Those three

[29:28] meters totaled uh 2.2 million gallons of water. The splash pad in June was 2.4

[29:37] million gallons. [clears throat] That's for the kids. They press the

[29:39] button, the water turns on. Stubmer Park was 1.8 million. Betty Kefir was

[29:46] 800,000. Shepherd of the Hills was 800,000. North Idaho College was 700.

[29:52] Gutney Electric was seven. And a Vista irrigation was 689.

[29:58] Each one of those on the far end shows what they would use if they had a 1 in

[30:02] of water per week, per acre for the month. Um, and that shows you who's

[30:09] conserving and who's not conserving water in their irrigation processes.

[30:14] Um, it's also important to notice that there is no substantial benefit to

[30:20] watering your yard more than 10 minutes per station.

[30:27] The reason for that is because our land is very porous. When we did a water well

[30:32] test for Okay. Well, we were required to dig a pit and put water in the pit and

[30:38] we had to see how long it would take to drop back into the ground. That pit

[30:44] never filled at four 3,000 gallons per minute. Chris,

[30:49] 3,000 gallons per minute into that pit and it never filled.

[30:54] Um also have a map of where those water

[30:59] users are um in the top 10 for June. In July, the

[31:06] Brookshshire HOA used 5.7 million gallons. The Golden Spikes Estates

[31:15] used 4 million gallons. The Splash Pad used 2.2 million gallons. The Westwood

[31:21] Property Owners Association use 1.7, Betty Kefir 1.7, North Idaho College

[31:27] 1.5, StubMer 1.2, Coupney Electric 1 million, Shepard of the Hills 900, and

[31:34] Keech at 873. Um, the reason why we brought this up is

[31:40] as we drove around town, we noticed that there was a lot of water running in the

[31:44] streets, down the sidewalks. Swells were filled and not being absorbed into the

[31:49] ground. uh obvious that where there is

[31:53] overwatering within our system. They also correspond to the pressure times

[31:58] that we have loss of pressure um in the data that is presented in the packet

[32:03] that I put together for you. Um basically what we're seeing as far as

[32:09] evidence here is that our problem is specific to the time frame when people

[32:14] water their lawns, not specific to the development of houses. If we were to do

[32:20] some sort of conservation effort or something to that effect and try to

[32:24] provide education to the public that would do more benefit for the pressure

[32:30] of the city than doing a moratorum on growth. Our moratorum also requires us

[32:37] to look at things that we can do to try to uh fix the problem before actually

[32:44] doing a moratorum. And we have to state what we did try and if we didn't try

[32:50] anything, why we didn't try anything. Why would it not work? Okay. We also

[32:55] have uh information from our city engineer and

[33:00] our public works director that have said that we needed to do a water storage

[33:05] facility to help with pressure uh alleviation.

[33:09] Now that pressure uh that water tower [clears throat] we do have a possibility

[33:14] possibility of land that we can build that water tower on. We have 100% of the

[33:19] dollars to build it to put water lines in and to make it a functional piece of

[33:24] our infrastructure. We have collected those dollars from every commercial and

[33:29] residential building permit for the last 10 plus years. Um that's why we have the

[33:34] money available to do that project. uh planning and preparation. In the 10

[33:40] years that I've been here, Kevin has always said we're going to need another

[33:43] water storage facility. The question is is where? Where can we get it? We don't

[33:48] own land for it. So, we need to either get land in an agreement with a property

[33:53] owner or we need to get land through an annexation or we need to buy land, one

[33:58] of the three. And so, now we have an opportunity for that as well. before you

[34:04] on this old business item is to talk about findings. Um

[34:10] Emily has put together a council moratorum findings worksheet if the

[34:16] council decides that they have findings. I would recommend there are um

[34:22] essentially 11 different things that have to be filled out on this council

[34:26] worksheet. If the council determines that there is findings for eminent peril

[34:32] and that then I would highly suggest taking a workshop time within the next

[34:38] week to fill this out and get it prepared. It would not delay a public

[34:44] hearing or an ordinance in front of the city council because we do not have time

[34:49] uh to have a 15-day notice prior to the next council meeting. And taking a a day

[34:55] within the next week to do a workshop to fill this out will only help us to get

[35:00] an ordinance ready to go to be submitted for a public hearing on the first

[35:05] council meeting of September. The other item that is before you today is if you

[35:10] don't uh find findings of imminent peril. Then

[35:15] we do have an action item in new business, the consideration of a

[35:20] resolution acknowledging preliminary water concerns and directing staff. That

[35:25] resolution is in front of the council today as well. So that there is

[35:30] something that can be done today. Uh it does list things in that resolution that

[35:36] the city staff has already done and is continuing to do as well as other items

[35:44] which we'll get to in when we come to the resolution part. However, I would

[35:49] strongly recommend the council to consider this. If you find that there is

[35:55] imminent peril, then I recommend that you do not address the resolution

[36:01] because it would only weaken the standings for imminent peril uh for your

[36:07] moratorum. With that, I'll stand for any questions

[36:12] and uh other than that, then we'll allow the council to deliberate on their

[36:16] decision.

[36:20] And and maybe I missed it in the the packet [clears throat] that we received

[36:24] today. Did we did we hear back from the fire department on the potential issues

[36:30] that they were having with the hydrant by Dashco?

[36:34] » So I did hear back from him. So here's what I immediately after our staff

[36:40] meeting on Tuesday reached out to Tyler Dresco. He is the fire marshal for the

[36:45] Northern Lakes Fire District. The initial response that he told me is

[36:49] he had no clue that anyone tried to fill up in any one of the four agencies that

[36:55] attempted uh that were there in the fire. Um filling up anywhere locating

[37:01] sorry filling up their units anywhere other than the location of the fire. Uh

[37:10] he said that the fire dedicated and and named a specific source for water. They

[37:16] were supposed to fill up during the fire and after the fire. They should not ever

[37:22] leave a fire with an empty unit. Um, so that's per their policies. Um, I told

[37:28] him that there was reports that somebody tried to fill up at Dashco and somebody

[37:32] tried to fill up at Greens Fairy. He said he would contact the other agencies

[37:36] and see if there was any report of any low pressure. Per all policies in the

[37:42] fire departments, they are supposed to report the any low water pressure within

[37:48] 24 hours to the fire marshall of the jurisdiction that they filled up in. He

[37:53] received no reports back from any of the fire agencies that helped on that fire.

[37:59] So he has nothing to back up the comments that you had mentioned about

[38:03] filling up in other locations. >> Yeah. And you know, again, all I have to

[38:07] go by is what I was told by the firefighters that were on Greens Fairy

[38:10] Road. I I actually have a picture um of them trying to fill up and and and just

[38:16] for public notification, um they told me that they couldn't fill

[38:20] up a Dashco. There was a problem with water pressure there. Um they moved out

[38:24] to Greens Ferry because they knew that the hydrants were there. Um, and I asked

[38:28] them if they were having problems with water pressure, at which point they

[38:31] reached down and they squeezed the hose completely together. The fire hose

[38:35] looked like about a 4 inch hose. And they said, "Yeah, we're having water

[38:39] pressure issues." Now, my understanding is based on the staff meeting, those

[38:42] lines aren't supposed to be live. They're not supposed to be filling up

[38:45] there. Is that is that correct? >> That's correct.

[38:47] » Correct. >> So, apparently we have not communicated

[38:50] with our first responders that those are not hydrants that they're supposed to be

[38:53] using. Well, that hasn't been accepted

[38:56] infrastructure by the city. Period. >> But they're there and there's no there's

[38:59] no indication that they're not supposed to be used.

[39:03] » Oh, there. Yes, you're correct. There is no indication that they're not supposed

[39:07] to be used, but they shouldn't have been water at that site at all. And somebody

[39:11] has a valve turned on that shouldn't have been turned on.

[39:14] » Okay. And we've been able to track that down at all.

[39:17] » I don't turn that. Could that be impacting the

[39:22] greater system as well if we have valves turned on that shouldn't be turned on?

[39:26] » Not if it's not supplying water. >> I mean, water was coming out of the

[39:31] hose. >> Yeah, there there was some residual

[39:33] issues when we had the uh shut down on the 24 in through their farms and that

[39:39] may have been what was left over. It could have been the residual from their

[39:42] pressure testing.

[39:46] And I mean my concern there as we're discussing imminent peril is that the

[39:51] fire department doesn't know where they're supposed to get water.

[39:53] » No. The fire department directed all units to get water at the station by the

[39:59] fire. So they were directed basically not to get water anywhere else.

[40:04] » Yeah. And whoever is supplying that water, kudos. I mean I I was up there. I

[40:08] posted pictures of uh you know one of our officers jumping in to help out. you

[40:12] know, we we pulled the line from the truck, hooked it up to the hydrant,

[40:15] hooked the other end up to the truck, and [clears throat] I mean, it it filled

[40:18] it like that. The that line was rock hard. I actually stepped on it to kind

[40:22] of judge how, you know, how much pressure was going through it. Um, so,

[40:26] you know, I know that's not in the city of Rather, but kudos to that

[40:29] neighborhood. They've got great water pressure.

[40:33] I'm I'm more concerned about the fact that, you know, we have a and and maybe

[40:38] this is more of a fire department issue. um and whoever the you know uh incident

[40:43] commander was for that um and that we have trucks getting water from hydrants

[40:49] that are essentially turned off >> and that they didn't they weren't aware

[40:53] of that >> and they shouldn't have been there in

[40:56] the first place. >> No.

[41:01] » Um loss of pressure times. Can you pull up that chart, Leon?

[41:05] » I'm sorry. What? You said you had a chart that showed the the times where we

[41:09] had lack of pressure where the pressure dropped. I believe that's the the AM

[41:13] times that you were referenced. >> Yes. So, let me get past the work orders

[41:18] here. Let me zoom out so that I can see what's on the screen.

[41:37] So these are the pressure logs. Mayor,

[41:42] this one is the uh believe this is the first one.

[41:49] Second, I've got a lot of papers.

[41:54] » Which page is that? >> Getting there just a second. It's page

[41:57] 48 on the digital copy file. Uh

[42:04] this one

[42:08] » it's page two of the

[42:13] » pressure logs.

[42:17] » Is that what you're looking for? Just a number.

[42:19] » No, I'm looking for the chart. Just >> I'm I'm a visual person. [clears throat]

[42:24] » Here is the the first one there up on the screen.

[42:30] I've zoomed it in. >> Notice that the low pressure point right

[42:34] here is just below the 85 mark, but you have to subtract 13 off of that, which

[42:40] would put it at about 72 in there, as I stated in the

[42:49] packet. As you can tell, it's hard to read exactly where that is at. So, I

[42:53] made an estimate. I said 70 PSI on that page.

[42:57] » All right. Sorry. Can you scroll down just a little bit so I can see the

[43:00] reference line on the x- axis? >> Okay. So, what

[43:05] and maybe this is a question for Chris. What What are we looking at where

[43:09] there's a line very low and then it goes up? Is that

[43:12] » And then at the end it drops again. What What is that?

[43:15] » That's when I take it off the fire hydrant.

[43:16] » Okay. Okay. So, that's when you're putting it on and taking

[43:19] » because it's calibrated in the shop and downloaded. You have your install and

[43:23] then you have when I take it off and then go and download it.

[43:27] And they'll see on that uh before it starts it's at approximately 13 PSI down

[43:34] at that bottom side. So that is the uh subtraction

[43:39] number that needs to be done on that >> and these are in March.

[43:43] » Yes. >> Do we have any from July or August?

[43:47] » Let me go to the next one.

[43:51] » So this is also in March.

[43:59] And again, the low here I'm estimating at 41 PSI.

[44:05] Trying to have it large and show you everything at the same time. But

[44:09] » yeah, I appreciate that point. >> It comes down just below the 55.

[44:16] Get a conservative estimate that that would put it at about 41.

[44:22] Okay, the next one. This one's even harder to

[44:27] read because it gets into a higher pressure category.

[44:31] So, this one runs at about 60 70 80. So, this line along

[44:40] here is 80 PSI, but you have to subtract 13 from that, which would get you to 77.

[44:48] » Or is that right? 80 >> 67

[44:51] » I said 67. Yeah, that's right. That's 13 minus or 80 - 13. Apologize,

[44:58] but it stayed that consistent pressure. That's on trestle and Voyager.

[45:04] Uh that was in April on the 14th. >> Okay. And that's that's at the hydrant.

[45:09] » Mhm. >> Okay.

[45:11] » This is [clears throat] a pressure reading. Let me scroll down

[45:16] here a little bit. Oops. Oops.

[45:25] This is a Brookshshire and Railway. Your lowest point on this graph is right

[45:31] here at the very beginning of the readings. This was over a longer period

[45:35] of time. Um, from May 21 to to April 22nd, I estimated that that was at about

[45:44] 44 PSI. Um, as you can tell, it kind of goes up

[45:50] and down quite a bit throughout the day, but never below the 40 PSI mark.

[45:58] Okay, the next page,

[46:05] this is on Trestle and Voyager. Again, this is in April on the 22nd.

[46:11] Again, the lowest point is right about this point right here,

[46:16] which I'm estimating to be about 40 50 PSI

[46:21] based off of reading that graph.

[46:27] Here's another one. This is on Thisman and Railway on May

[46:32] 21st. The lowest point on this graph

[46:37] is right here. And that

[46:42] on May 20. I'm just making sure I got the right one. May 20th, May 21st.

[46:48] Um, I'm estimating that to be at about 45 or sorry, 34 PSI during this time

[46:55] frame. I also mentioned that it was at approximately 24 minutes and that was at

[47:03] about 3:30 in the morning,

[47:06] » 4 or 5:00 in the afternoon if I'm reading that right. maybe 4:30

[47:12] and for a short period of time

[47:17] on May 24th

[47:23] or May, sorry, this is May 22nd through the 26th.

[47:29] We have a couple low points. We have a low point right here that would probably

[47:36] put that at about 5253. So that would be at about 40 PSI.

[47:42] You have another short period of time to the dips right here. This is at about

[47:47] 5253 there. So you subtract it be about 39 30 or 40. And then you have another

[47:54] period of time right here that uh shows a drop at

[48:01] where I'm estimating is the low spot and that be about 37 PSI.

[48:08] And if I calculated this right, which I may be, may not be. I'm looking at the

[48:14] right one. roughly between 3:30, it's either sorry,

[48:20] 3:30 a.m. or 3:30 p.m. I'm looking at the data here. It's probably 3:30 p.m.

[48:27] Um, for a period of what I've estimated to be about 2 hours.

[48:35] Um, this one

[48:43] is on Simmons on June 16th

[48:47] through the 17th. The lowest reading at this particular point is about 43 PSI.

[48:57] And then the big one is this one. This was on July

[49:05] uh 23rd through the 24th. And this one has a big dip in the

[49:10] pressure. And that big dip in the pressure

[49:14] was for 3 hours from approximately 4:15 a.m. to 7:15 a.m.

[49:23] Again, that one's in a watering time frame.

[49:26] » Yeah. What was your estimated reading there? Uh, estimated reading at the

[49:31] lowest point was uh >> 40 PSI.

[49:38] » No, >> 20 PSI, I think.

[49:42] » Oh, yeah. 20 PSI. Sorry, I said it was below 40 or 3 hours.

[49:53] But the lowest was this point at 20 PSI.

[50:00] So at the level where we are required to notify

[50:05] authorities. Correct. >> If we get below that. Yes.

[50:08] » If it goes below. Okay. It's it's greater than or equal 220 then.

[50:11] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[50:15] » Uh again we're seeing it during irrigation times for the most part.

[50:20] There's other dips in other times of the day. But some of the things that staff

[50:25] has looked at is conservation. Uh the Hayden, Cord Lane, Post Falls all have

[50:30] watering days. Depending upon what side of the street that you're on, we would

[50:34] be the only ones that would ever do that. Um Spokane's done it as well.

[50:39] » And I believe our code has specifics as well um that dictate what would happen

[50:44] in a water emergency in terms of days of the week and hub and water. [snorts] I

[50:47] believe it's residential and commercial is how it's split. Right, Chris? This

[50:51] isn't deemed a water emergency, but it could be education on conservation.

[50:56] So, we could do the first step on that. Now, um the other thing that we noticed

[51:03] over the course of last year versus this year is last year we did a tiered system

[51:08] with water pricing at 67 cents per or 69 cents per thousand gallons for the first

[51:17] 20,000 gallons and then it went up to $1.40. 40 when those first started

[51:23] hitting the actual bills because we notified the public in March, April, and

[51:27] May of those price increases. When the bills actually hit, we immediately saw a

[51:34] reduction of 500,000 gallons of water used per day for the months of July and

[51:41] August from what our normal was. So that helped us to have some sort of water

[51:47] conservation. The other thing is providing education on how much water.

[51:52] Now I can understand that, you know, something goes brown. It could be a

[51:59] number of things, not necessarily just water issues. Um because if you water

[52:04] longer, like I said, 10 minutes, that water drains faster than it can get to

[52:09] the grass. And so there could be other things like how much top soil is there?

[52:14] Is there rock underneath the inch or two of top soil that's heating up and

[52:19] burning the grass? Water's not going to solve that problem. There are other

[52:24] issues that you could look at, too. In my yard, for example, I tried to be

[52:29] conservative with my water. My my reading was 17,000 gallons. I have one

[52:34] area of my yard that's green and another area of my yard that goes from brown to

[52:39] green. The green spot is next to my neighbor

[52:43] where you could tell that my neighbor waters more than I do and my my yard

[52:47] benefits from that in a certain part of my yard. Okay. Um so therefore there's

[52:54] several different ways to address how green your yard is. Um but the uh

[53:04] um what we're seeing is irrigation related. We're seeing seasonal as in

[53:10] summertime more than anything else. Um, and we are not seeing corresponding dips

[53:19] based off of the number of building permits that are issued or the number of

[53:23] certificate certificates of occupancy that are issued. So maybe maybe Chris

[53:29] and Kevin can help me understand um if if we

[53:34] are at a low point of 20 PSI and let's say the worst possible happens and we

[53:40] get a fire in Ratham. Rick [clears throat] Pine shared some pretty

[53:43] concerning photos about some school district property. Um you know that very

[53:48] likely could catch fire. Um so so if that happens and we're at 20 PSI and

[53:52] they crank open the hydrants, what happens?

[54:00] based off of fire. >> Well, basically um this meter or this

[54:05] reading was taken from the exact same uh hydrant that we flowed for the master

[54:10] plan for JUB >> and at that point um granted it was a

[54:14] little bit higher but um it was able to recover and keep pumping.

[54:20] » When when was that reading taken? >> This reading? No, the reading that

[54:24] you're talking about for >> JUB

[54:27] last year

[54:31] in September. >> Oh, September.

[54:33] » Okay. So, after peak season,

[54:38] » July, fire testing was July, August. Pressure testing was September. So I I

[54:43] mean I think one of the biggest problems that I have, you know, when we're

[54:46] talking about looking at the evidence and looking at the numbers and things

[54:49] like that is that we're kind of doing a little bit of apples to oranges

[54:52] comparison, right? We're we're looking at evidence here that's showing that it

[54:56] drops to 20 PSI. And you know, we've we've talked about this at past meetings

[55:01] where you have to kind of plan for the worst, hope for the best. JUB said the

[55:04] same thing, right? Well, what happens if your pumps go offline and you're only

[55:07] operating on one, right? Um I if it is worst case scenario and it's July

[55:15] 24th and we have a fire, what happens to our

[55:19] water pressure? >> I don't think I can speak intelligently

[55:23] to that without seeing the hydraulic modeling from the the plant

[55:28] » and and we've never had a hydraulic model done in the past. Is that do I

[55:32] understand that correctly as well? >> That's correct.

[55:38] The other concern though in addressing this as far as an imminent peril is

[55:42] continuous. What you're seeing is obviously yes

[55:46] there is a drop in the pressure. The question is is it continuous? looking at

[55:51] this graph as the only evidence then I would say that it's not

[55:57] continuous >> for a a short period of time over the

[56:01] period of uh 2 and 1/2 3 days and the pressure stays up during those

[56:09] other times even during a morning time frame that would match this exact same

[56:14] situation on a previous day in this in this graph.

[56:18] » Yeah. And if I'm if I'm not mistaken, the city attorney basically said the

[56:21] definition there would be her ability to argue what is continuous and what is

[56:25] not. >> That that that graph um from a

[56:28] statistical perspective shows a continuous drop in water pressure.

[56:33] » The length of that continuity is in question, but it is continuous by

[56:38] definition. Right? So so now we're talking about well what is the length?

[56:42] How how long does it have to be low for it to be continuous? And is an emergency

[56:47] going to wait for our water pressure to come back up, for the t for the tank on

[56:52] the mountain to refill, for all of the stars to align, for us to be able to

[56:58] fight a what could be a catastrophic fire? And we almost had one on the

[57:02] mountain. We were very close. Thank God for our first responders getting up

[57:06] there as quickly as they did. I mean, we even had RPD chipping in to fill up

[57:10] tenders. >> I would like to add one thing, Mr. Mayor

[57:16] um for your consideration is when that peak or when that maximum drop is the

[57:21] reservoir is not empty. >> Okay,

[57:23] » Chris, I have a question. So, if you crank on a fire hydrant when you got a

[57:28] 20 PSI reading in like a neighborhood, is the water following the path of least

[57:33] resistance, the larger line being the fire hydrant?

[57:36] » I would believe it would. >> So, it's going to feed the fire hydrant

[57:40] and not feed the residents. >> I would Yeah. The laws of hydraulics

[57:44] would tell me yes. >> Well, I think it would depend on where

[57:46] it's at on the line, isn't it? >> No. The smaller line will stop and the

[57:49] bigger line >> it'll just suck the water out of every

[57:51] sprinklers and go. Okay.

[57:56] » At 20 PSI. >> 20 PSI.

[58:00] » Well, no, because it would be sucking all the residence will be turned off at

[58:05] that. >> And that's that's what the hydraulic

[58:07] model will show, right? I mean, that's that's the hope.

[58:09] » Yeah. >> With a 90% accuracy. Right.

[58:18] Um,

[58:23] Leon, what's that one inch of water per week based on? So, if you go off of uh

[58:28] and do a Google thing and ask for one inch of water, that's uh Chris has put

[58:33] out stuff in our website as well as Kevin that says the appropriate amount

[58:38] of water for water conservation is approximately one inch of water per week

[58:43] per acre. And then so if you type that into Google, it will tell you how much

[58:48] that is. And then that's what I put into the uh the formula for those top 10

[58:56] water users.

[59:00] And we had when I did a drive by just in some of the things that I saw that was

[59:06] interesting was there was a business off of Bagel Road that when I drove by it

[59:12] was watering one zone. When I drove by again 30 minutes later it was still

[59:17] watering that same zone. And again, with our water, with our soil content,

[59:23] watering any more than about 10 minutes is just wasting the water. It's not

[59:28] going to feed your grass any better than 10 minutes of water per person.

[59:32] » Yeah. And I know it's been previously mentioned, you know, as we've been

[59:35] discussing water pressure and things like that. And, you know, the fact that

[59:38] again, this chart uh illustrates, you know, during the morning typically

[59:43] everybody's watering their lawns. for most homeowners, they don't ever touch

[59:47] their sprinkler settings, right? It's it's whatever it's set at. Have we

[59:51] worked with uh builders in the area to maybe start

[59:56] implementing some, hey, maybe you guys should start sending some of these to

[59:59] the evenings? >> No, we have not done anything like that.

[1:00:02] That's one of the things that we could add to the resolution of things that we

[1:00:06] need to get done. >> And and do we know why from an

[1:00:10] agricultural perspective the default is to water in the morning?

[1:00:14] I don't know the answer to that >> because that's not what they default at

[1:00:18] » that. It has to be set that way. >> I was gonna say Eric might be able to

[1:00:22] speak to that. He's probably more not to throw you out in the bus. Quite

[1:00:26] honestly, there's people that water in the morning and people that water in the

[1:00:30] evening. >> Yeah. I water in the evening.

[1:00:33] » Yeah. Both.

[1:00:37] And since I only water for about I water on one zone for four minutes and the

[1:00:42] other zone for six minutes. Uh I water in the morning and I water at night.

[1:00:48] But the one of the things that we could do as far as education for the public is

[1:00:51] to set your meter your irrigation at times that aren't going to be times that

[1:00:56] are people getting getting up. So if you water say 10 o'clock at night, 8 o'clock

[1:01:01] at night uh and avoid the uh 4:30 to 7:30 time frame and then spread out more

[1:01:08] more throughout either the early mornings of the hours or in the evening

[1:01:14] times, then you're not competing with getting up and showering and fixing

[1:01:21] breakfast with all the irrigation water. We obviously see that we have a major

[1:01:26] demand on our water during the early morning hours when everybody's getting

[1:01:31] up and taking showers and getting ready for work and doing things. We also have

[1:01:36] a demand for irrigation during that time frame. So again, educating the public on

[1:01:42] trying to get their meat their irrigation swapped to other times, say

[1:01:47] between 8:00 at night and and 4:00 in the morning and and doing that. Even the

[1:01:54] idea of alternating your water um a little bit in the morning and a little

[1:01:58] bit at night would also help because when I went through the Corbin crossing

[1:02:03] subdivision, you could tell that more I would say between 75% and 90% of the

[1:02:09] residents were watering between 5:30 and 6:30 in the morning. That's the same

[1:02:14] type that people getting up and getting ready for work and trying to get ready

[1:02:17] to work. >> Living in Corbin Crossings, I can tell

[1:02:20] you yes, that is a fact. I cannot water my lawn and take a shower in the

[1:02:24] morning. That's why I water my lawn in the evening and take a

[1:02:29] mediocre water pressure shower in the morning.

[1:02:33] Yeah. And you you live in an area that's got a booster pump. And in this data,

[1:02:38] you'll see that in those early mornings, uh, that booster pump shows that it is

[1:02:43] working at pretty close to peak capacity in those early morning hours. And it's

[1:02:49] pumping more volume of water [clears throat] to the citizens in that

[1:02:53] subdivision during that time than any other time throughout the day.

[1:03:01] Matter of fact, let me >> pop down.

[1:03:09] So, this is that booster pack graph. I'm going to try to put this in here.

[1:03:15] There's two graphs, one that talks pressure and one that talks uh uh

[1:03:20] volume, but I want to show you the red is your volume. Okay, you have a peak at

[1:03:27] volume at about 8:00 at night and you have a peak of volume for a very long

[1:03:33] period of time between about 4 a.m. and 7 a.m. That's your peak volume in that

[1:03:41] [clears throat] particular subdivision. It's the only

[1:03:43] subdivision that has pressure pumps. >> Okay.

[1:03:46] » And and why does that sub why is that the case? because there was low pressure

[1:03:50] problems and that's where the uh Majestic Park water tower was built to

[1:03:57] handle only that subdivision. And then it was better efficiency to put booster

[1:04:03] packs in that well that serves that subdivision than it was to continue

[1:04:09] using a 50,000galon water tank. So the pressure, you'll see a small drop

[1:04:16] in the pressure here. And I'm going to try to do this so you can see that small

[1:04:21] dip in the pressure does not need to subtract 13 psi because this is not the

[1:04:25] same situation as those pressure lockers. But at this low peak of time

[1:04:31] right here, which is about noon time frame, is at about 50 between 56 and 75

[1:04:38] PSI. It's hard to guesstimate where that's at right there.

[1:04:42] The other time that that pressure drops is between the 4:00 a.m. and 7 a.m. for

[1:04:50] that system. And that's because you see the peak of the water needs is in that

[1:04:56] same time frame. Again, again pointing to irrigation, not necessarily pointing

[1:05:01] to growth within that subdivision. This is a sole subdivision looking at it in a

[1:05:07] smaller view than the entire city. Um, but it represents what we see in the

[1:05:13] entire city because a lot of people water between the 4 and 7:00 hour.

[1:05:18] Everybody wants to get up and get ready for work at that same hour when kids go

[1:05:22] to school. That's what time they're getting ready to go to school. So, we're

[1:05:28] seeing those the pressure drop and the peak of water supply in that time frame

[1:05:34] is the biggest and most drastic time frame there. Even the pressure at 8:00

[1:05:40] um is staying pretty constant when the volume is increasing seeing at 8:00. I

[1:05:47] know it's tough to read with the other white lines and the pink lines that are

[1:05:51] there, but uh you're seeing a high peak in volume at about 8:00 at night. It's

[1:05:57] for a short period of time, but the pressure stays.

[1:06:02] You see the pressure drop and the volume increased drastically in the morning

[1:06:07] time frame.

[1:06:15] » Mr. Mayor, >> yeah. Um,

[1:06:19] rather Chris, when it dropped to that 20 PSI, did we investigate why?

[1:06:26] » We're currently investigating that. That's that's really what started the

[1:06:29] conser the conversation about the conservation. Sorry if I mix that up.

[1:06:34] But what we saw um as you go forward once you break into the irrigation

[1:06:39] system you know we always had that drop and you know we had two different we

[1:06:43] have two different scenarios. You have one in the winter when the reservoir is

[1:06:46] completely full and the well shuts off and you're waiting for the hydraulics to

[1:06:50] change and then in the middle you can kind of see both and then the irrigation

[1:06:54] started happening and then we started seeing that gap white. So the first

[1:06:58] thing we went um we went and did is we triple checked all the valves that were

[1:07:04] in that area and then we started looking at larger water users that may be on the

[1:07:09] way into Brookshshire. Um, we're still looking into that. And I know, uh, one

[1:07:14] thing that just recently happened is they just tied another line across Red

[1:07:18] Cliff. So, we'll be monitoring the SCADA and I'll probably put that same one out

[1:07:22] again just to see if that changes anything.

[1:07:27] Mr. Mayor, another item that we prepared is this map. I know it's hard to read.

[1:07:32] These are residential and commercial lots. Basically kind of give you an idea

[1:07:38] of how much water these are. These do not include irrigation

[1:07:43] because irrigation doesn't have an address specifically for it. The address

[1:07:48] is, you know, the business or some other third party group. So, in this, and I'm

[1:07:56] going to zoom in even though you can't see the the whole thing, but I'm just

[1:08:00] going to straight zoom in here. So, if there is a green dot on a

[1:08:06] resident, that means that that green dot, that resident is using less than

[1:08:11] 20,000 gallons of water per month. This was taken off of the June usage because

[1:08:17] we've had that for a little bit longer. The July usage didn't come in and get

[1:08:22] completed until August 6th. We really didn't have time to work with that. The

[1:08:27] orange dot is um between 20 and 50,000 gallons.

[1:08:35] Uh the yellow dot is over 50,000 to 100,000.

[1:08:41] And then the red dots are over a 100,000. And there were a few users that

[1:08:46] used way more than that. So we kind of put them into that bigger bigger

[1:08:50] category. Uh but it goes to show a little bit about the water usage. Um

[1:08:57] there are a few users that use a lot of water.

[1:09:03] Um and there are those that are very conservative in their water use and stay

[1:09:09] below the 20,000 gallons. And then there's everybody in between.

[1:09:14] Uh trying to get more data to see where this is at. Um the big thing we had one

[1:09:21] user who actually sat on council uh that when we were doing this we had a

[1:09:26] conversation as council when we did the tier water system uh last year in March

[1:09:32] and that would be in 25 we started talking about that and the realization

[1:09:38] that they were using 100,000 gallons of water a month to water their yard was a

[1:09:43] surprise to them because our water prices were so cheap. it didn't really

[1:09:48] make a big deal difference if they were using, you know, 10,000 or 100,000

[1:09:53] gallons. Uh when we changed that, uh it did change a lot of people and how much

[1:10:00] water they use. Uh in this particular, uh

[1:10:06] graphic, that same individual, I looked at their home, they're now using between

[1:10:12] 20 and 50,000 gallons. So sometimes providing education

[1:10:19] » helps to do that. Now there are other times where education does not help but

[1:10:25] maybe another tier of water pricing say you change the tiers then you make it a

[1:10:32] little bit more expensive if you're in the higher area again creating the other

[1:10:36] effect that we saw last year where there's reduction of water. So there's

[1:10:41] education and then there's also a cost item to get up in the morning for staff

[1:10:46] and try to monitor who's got their water on and who doesn't is we do not have the

[1:10:52] staff power to be up at 4:00 in the morning to monitor whether or not people

[1:10:56] are following conservation efforts. >> But we do have

[1:11:00] » but we do have the ability to measure how much water goes through their

[1:11:03] » Yeah. Thank you. And the reality is is today you can take

[1:11:09] just about [clears throat] any one of our wells and in the wintertime in

[1:11:13] December one well will service the needs for health and safety of our citizens

[1:11:19] for the entire month you know for the entire month of December or January.

[1:11:24] We do not have a need for five wells until we get to the irrigation system.

[1:11:32] And so is it right for the citizens that are conservative on their water to pay

[1:11:37] the same rate as what it is for the citizens that use extra water? And

[1:11:42] that's why we put in the tier system because the more water you use, the more

[1:11:47] infrastructure we need. >> Can you scroll down to Birkshshire in

[1:11:54] this? >> Sure.

[1:12:00] » Go ahead. point my house. >> Um, no, I think really what I'm pointing

[1:12:05] out is the fact that there are less of those big water users in [clears throat]

[1:12:08] the Brookshshire neighborhood. Now, I don't know if that's because of the

[1:12:12] water issue that they're having with with pressure or or if it's just

[1:12:18] generally because they're better custodians of their water.

[1:12:21] » Well, you could say that uh for a lot of them, we still have the same few houses

[1:12:26] that are using less than 20,000. We still have a pretty good decent

[1:12:31] amount that's using between 20 and 50. Uh, and we still have a few a few of the

[1:12:38] water users between 50 and 100 and then a couple of them that are above the

[1:12:42] 100,000 gallons. I'm not trying to single out any single

[1:12:47] subdivision or any single individual. What I'm trying to point out is that

[1:12:53] there are definite ways to look at conservation

[1:12:58] across the board. It's not one subdivision over another. There are high

[1:13:03] users that I think should be cutting back on their water. They should be

[1:13:06] looking at other ways to keep their grass green other than just water being

[1:13:10] the sole reason. >> Yeah. But I think what you are doing is

[1:13:13] you're trying to draw a correlation between good custodianship of water and

[1:13:18] water pressure, right? And >> from what I can see just anecdotally on

[1:13:24] the graph, one of the biggest areas that has problems with water pressure seems

[1:13:28] to be one of the better areas with being custodians of their water.

[1:13:31] » Wow. >> Because I don't see a lot of big red

[1:13:33] dots in that. >> You don't see a lot of big red dots, but

[1:13:36] you do see just as many orange dots as you see everywhere else.

[1:13:40] » There's not a huge number of red dots throughout the entire city,

[1:13:44] » but there is a good average of orange and yellow dots through the whole city.

[1:13:49] It doesn't matter what subdivision you're in. You've got them all over the

[1:13:53] place. And the reason why I'm bringing this up, mayor, is because our issue is

[1:13:58] is really in the irrigation time frames when we're irrigating.

[1:14:03] And that's what's causing the low pressure. It's the irrigation use of

[1:14:08] water. Um, I have areas in my yard that are brown. I know I need to add more top

[1:14:14] soil because it's right next to the cement and that cement heats up and it's

[1:14:19] going to burn the grass. It doesn't matter how much water you put on it,

[1:14:22] it's going to burn up the grass next to that. So, you add more top soil and add

[1:14:26] seed on it cuz it's dead. And maybe I can get the grass to grow because

[1:14:31] there'll be more distance to uh isolate that heat from burning the the

[1:14:38] grassroots. Okay. So, everyone, including myself,

[1:14:44] has work to do in improving it. It's the easy solution is water, right? Add more

[1:14:51] water. Add more water. It'll get green someday, but it won't. I mean, I've been

[1:14:56] to Brookshshire. I drove down railway. There's brown all over the place, isn't

[1:14:59] there? >> Yes. Can I respond to that?

[1:15:03] » Yeah, go for it. Uh Brookshshire has the biggest green space in any of the

[1:15:10] developments. Okay? And I've asked the city to stop making us water that. But

[1:15:17] they say, "Nope, you got to water it. You got to have trees in there." And if

[1:15:21] the developers keep putting in green spaces, we're just wasting water. We

[1:15:27] don't need the grass. >> But 20 ft wide. If you're looking at how

[1:15:32] much water is being used there on a per acre level, you're using more water than

[1:15:39] any of the others on a per acre level. Not

[1:15:41] » Leon, I agree. Let me cut my water sprinklers off to the commons. Mayor,

[1:15:47] let me do that and I'll let it go and then you'll see

[1:15:52] » 500,000 going down.

[1:15:54] » There's other solutions to keep it green.

[1:15:57] » Can I make a quick comment here? I had a black pillar of bricks

[1:16:06] and next to it, right next to the black pillar of bricks, that lawn always turns

[1:16:13] brown or yellow. >> It gets the same amount of water as

[1:16:17] everywhere else. But the color of the brick absorbs the heat and radiates it

[1:16:23] out directly to that grass. >> Y

[1:16:26] » has nothing to do with how much water. All right, we're going to we're going to

[1:16:30] take a fivem minute recess.

[1:16:41] [clears throat]

[1:16:43] » Why? Because the city requires us to the city requires us to have maintained

[1:16:49] trees and maintain grass. And that's the that comes back to the developer.

[1:16:56] So made Joe saying, "Oh, we'll make it pretty."

[1:17:02] » So, Rick Rick, so I can I can I can I can answer part of that, right? So, one

[1:17:08] of the biggest things that the people in Ratham have complained about is the

[1:17:11] density of the neighborhoods. And from a city planning perspective, one of the

[1:17:16] ways to change the perception of density is to include more green space.

[1:17:20] » Absolutely. Put don't put Brookshshire up there on the [laughter] on the

[1:17:27] » I was putting you up there as an example of a good example.

[1:17:30] » No, I'm talking about Leon. >> Good example.

[1:17:32] » I'm talking about Leon. >> Because there's so much green space.

[1:17:35] » Exactly. >> Yeah. I have 9 and 12 acres and that's a

[1:17:39] whole subdivision. And if you break that down, 3 something of it is commons.

[1:17:45] » Do you do you have your commons set to only water for 10 minutes? No, we do not

[1:17:50] because that's what the developer did. >> Yeah. So, can we set it to 10 minutes

[1:17:55] and see how it goes? >> We probably could, but why should

[1:18:00] Brookshshire be >> and I have made that point before. Why

[1:18:05] should I be limited on how much I water my

[1:18:07] » lawn? So, that my that was going to be my

[1:18:11] question. Is the HOA being built because they have to keep a green space

[1:18:18] » at the higher rate because we're using over 1,000 gallons.

[1:18:23] » System >> then that should that shouldn't be that

[1:18:26] should not be because that's mandated by the city.

[1:18:30] » So the city should be way. >> Yes.

[1:18:33] » And I have a meter I have a pressure gauge on my house between 4 and 5 a.m. I

[1:18:38] measure 5 psi. >> Yes. I mean, we're

[1:18:42] » 5 PSI of >> saying it, too.

[1:18:44] » It's all We're all using. >> Look at Brookshshire.

[1:18:51] » Yeah, >> we have two red dots.

[1:18:54] » There are other options than just watering your lawn.

[1:18:57] » I fertilize the hell out of my everyday. >> What do you use for fertilizer? Out of

[1:19:01] curiosity. >> Sorry.

[1:19:04] Which one? >> I just use triple 16 on mine and it

[1:19:07] seems to do. No, no, >> I use it, too, because it's great for

[1:19:11] everything else, too. But I have like four or five different ones. And my

[1:19:15] front yard is pristine green. And I don't water I mean I might water a

[1:19:20] little more than the 10 minutes, but not not an hour. Not none like that.

[1:19:25] » It's I think mine are set at 15 minutes. And I have three

[1:19:29] uh zones. My backyard, I agree with him. I need more top soil life to fix that.

[1:19:35] But I've gone back and fertilized the hell out of it and it's green and I've

[1:19:39] got my water bag now that yard. But what frustrates me is I have 5 PSI at my

[1:19:45] house when my wife's trying to shower to go.

[1:19:47] » Yeah. And that's that's my problem. >> And I mean she's like I'm in here

[1:19:51] forever trying to get the soap off of me.

[1:19:54] » You can't wash dishes. You can't wash your clothes.

[1:19:57] » Have you have you had them come out and hook a thing up?

[1:20:00] » I have emailed you. I have emailed you, Chris. I have a return email saying that

[1:20:05] they're supposed to be putting a meter some or a pressure check to check and I

[1:20:11] don't know where >> I I can show you the email that I got

[1:20:17] » cuz I'm like >> so reply to reply. Do me a favor. Reply

[1:20:20] to his email so you see me on it and I replied to his email.

[1:20:24] » Do it again. >> Okay.

[1:20:25] » With pictures of my 5 PSI. Now [clears throat] granted I'll give you

[1:20:29] this. >> Every water meter has a plus minus,

[1:20:31] right? >> Sure. So, if I'm at five and let's say

[1:20:34] it's a I'm off by five PSI. Okay, I got 10.

[1:20:37] » Then you got it's not plusus. >> Yeah, [laughter] right. Right. Right.

[1:20:42] And >> you know, if I could get a constant 40

[1:20:46] PSI, I would jump up and down and and wear a skirt for you to be honest with

[1:20:50] you because listen, if we fix it, I'm going to hold you to that. [laughter]

[1:20:55] Okay.

[1:21:02] We've got a minute. >> Better hurry up.

[1:21:30] Well, that's right. I just want to get an idea.

[1:21:40] Oh, literally the whole thing is my point is

[1:21:48] we're still going to be over that threshold of trying to conserve water.

[1:21:53] Even if we were doing 10 minutes,

[1:21:58] we would still be paying out the heat.

[1:22:31] And that's everything.

[1:22:37] » When we come back, we'll go to you first.

[1:22:40] We'll work down the line like

[1:22:47] » Yeah, you didn't tap me. >> I know.

[1:22:49] » I was waiting for him. >> Yeah. [laughter] I'll go first, Larry.

[1:22:54] And then [clears throat]

[1:23:09] we'll just wait for Mr. Serge.

[1:23:14] » Sure. >> Yes. Pam just told me.

[1:23:20] » Yeah. Sorry. the the microphone is still broken. Um I I

[1:23:26] think I have a fix on the internet, but I think we need a powered USB hub. I

[1:23:31] have one at home. And >> you were asking of the question about

[1:23:34] why people water in the morning and in the evening. You ever water your grass

[1:23:38] during the day? It evaporates before it gets on there. Larry knows that. But

[1:23:43] it's so the default setting that most most horiculturists are going to

[1:23:47] » between 4 and six is better to water in the morning.

[1:23:50] » Yeah, absolutely.

[1:23:56] » Okay. All right. >> I used the g back to it.

[1:24:03] » Look at me go. >> All right. Um

[1:24:10] » go ahead and start. Um Laura, you you wanted to start off here?

[1:24:15] » Yeah. Uh before I do, I just had a quick question for Chris about the uh work

[1:24:20] orders. >> The those readings, were they all taken

[1:24:23] basically between 9:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. during

[1:24:29] » City of Wrath from hours? >> Yeah, they were taken during business

[1:24:32] hours. There should be a time stamp on them.

[1:24:34] » Okay. So if those residents were having lower water pressure

[1:24:41] during those earlier hours where you weren't able to measure it, that's quite

[1:24:45] possible, right? >> Yeah. That's why we got the uh pressure

[1:24:48] transducers because they monitor your monitor 24 hours a day.

[1:24:52] » You need the pressure logs. >> Yeah. So those would be more accurate

[1:24:57] for what those residents were actually experiencing.

[1:25:00] » Yeah. It would give you a much clearer picture.

[1:25:02] » Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. >> Um, yeah. So, I did prepare something

[1:25:07] that I wanted to say. [clears throat] >> I'm I believe that

[1:25:16] um the proposed moratorum does meet the requirements of

[1:25:22] Idaho code 67-6524.

[1:25:27] The statute does not require us to prove that water

[1:25:32] that the water system has already failed. It requires requires us to state

[1:25:38] and find in writing that an imminent peril to public health, safety or

[1:25:43] welfare requires moratorum. I believe that the evidence that we have

[1:25:48] seen before us supports that finding. First, this is not a hypothetical or

[1:25:54] speculative problem. Our engineering consultants have presented

[1:26:00] preliminary findings showing that our water system is very stressed.

[1:26:06] During summer demand, our wells are being pushed to near full capacity. Our

[1:26:12] tank storage is struggling to recover, especially during peak hour demand. The

[1:26:18] engineers have identified pump cycle related pressure fluctuations and told

[1:26:23] us that additional water storage and infrastructure are necessary to fix this

[1:26:29] problem both for current conditions and future conditions. We also have the

[1:26:36] evidence from our public works director of low pressure.

[1:26:42] uh we had which has been pre uh pre presented to us

[1:26:48] at measures below 40 PSI at specific continuous times and locations. The

[1:26:55] reason the 40 PSI is being brought up is because

[1:27:01] uh per IDAPA which is the Idaho codes uh rules and regulations anything below 40

[1:27:08] PSI is considered a measurable deficiency.

[1:27:13] And this isn't something that suddenly appeared.

[1:27:17] Our public works again director again has showed us the evidence that these

[1:27:22] complaints began approximately four years ago and that they have increased

[1:27:27] and actually remained steady for the last few years.

[1:27:32] as our uh growth has accelerated we know rather has grown considerably um

[1:27:40] approximately 30 to 40% in the last uh 5 years and Jub

[1:27:47] Engineering's preliminary findings they started by saying this is from rather

[1:27:54] growing this is what they said rather is growing summer demand is pushing supply

[1:27:59] limitations tank storage is struggling Um during these peak hour demands,

[1:28:05] current pump oper operating sequences are contributing to isolated pressure

[1:28:11] fluctuations and additional storage and um supply

[1:28:16] infrastructure is needed to address this problem. That's what they said.

[1:28:22] Um [clears throat] so yes our engineers have specifically identified it

[1:28:28] identified that the population the de development growth is the reason for the

[1:28:33] increasing water demand. So we have very important

[1:28:38] sequence of facts. Populations growing rapidly, water demands increasing,

[1:28:43] systems becoming increasingly stressed, low pressure problems have emerged and

[1:28:48] increased. Our wells are approaching the capacity during peak demand. Storage is

[1:28:53] struggling to recover and the infrastructure needed to provide

[1:28:58] additional capacity and resilience is not yet in place.

[1:29:03] [cough] That in my view is substantially more than any generalized concern about

[1:29:09] growth. Nor is it just isolated incidents. Second, I believe the peril

[1:29:15] is imminent because these conditions are occurring now and are most pronounced

[1:29:19] during predictable periods of peak demand.

[1:29:23] We should not have to wait for the system to fail or even get worse or for

[1:29:28] a fire to occur when pressure and storage are at their lowest to recognize

[1:29:33] that this there is a risk. Third, the proposed moratorum is directly connected

[1:29:38] to the problem. New development requires municipal water service. It creates

[1:29:44] additional demand on the very system that our engineers have identified as

[1:29:49] stressed. The moratorum would temporarily

[1:29:53] [clears throat] prevent us from adding that additional demand while we complete

[1:29:57] the water system master master plan, the hydraulic modeling and determine exactly

[1:30:02] what infrastructure is necessary and begin addressing those deficiencies.

[1:30:08] Finally, I recognize that the engineering study is not yet complete,

[1:30:13] but I don't believe that means we have no evidence. We already have measured

[1:30:18] pressure data, operational data, historical complaints, water demand

[1:30:23] information, rapid population growth, and the preliminary engineering findings

[1:30:31] uh to address uh the option of water conservation and education of the

[1:30:40] public about that. I do think that's important and can be done, but it's not

[1:30:44] a fix to the problem because that takes time to implement. We don't have the

[1:30:49] time for that right now. The question before us is not whether we can prove

[1:30:53] that our water system will fail tomorrow. The question is whether the

[1:30:57] evidence demonstrates is there an immediate threat that

[1:31:01] continuing to add demand before corrective infrastructure is in place

[1:31:06] would that present an unacceptable unacceptable risk to public health

[1:31:10] safety or welfare? By the way, the word welfare

[1:31:15] can certainly apply to the inability to have adequate water

[1:31:20] pressure for our residents. I believe the evidence supports that conclusion

[1:31:25] and for that reason I do believe that a temporary narrowly tail tailored interim

[1:31:31] moratorum is reasonable and responsible action again not to stop growth

[1:31:36] permanently but to protect the reliability and safety of our water

[1:31:41] system while we finish the engineering work and determine how much additional

[1:31:46] development our infrastructure can safely support.

[1:31:56] So you're you're saying instead of a citywide moratorum, a a directed

[1:32:02] moratorium to certain parts of the city, what parts of the city?

[1:32:08] I think that it could be tailored to to um not necessarily just

[1:32:15] all building permits, but uh possibly to water system hookups or again to a

[1:32:23] geographical area as an option. >> And to our staff, what what areas of the

[1:32:30] city do we typically have the most complaints of low water pressure? I know

[1:32:33] we do get complaints of high water pressure downhill, but where do we get

[1:32:36] the complaints of high water pressure? So, if we were to identify an area where

[1:32:40] possibly we would we would need to implement a moratorium, where would that

[1:32:45] be? >> My best guess based on that would be

[1:32:48] Brookshshire. >> Just Brookshshire.

[1:32:51] » That's where most of the complaints come from.

[1:32:53] » Okay. Um, what about the surrounding areas about Corbin Crossing or across

[1:32:58] Meyer or >> Corbin crossing I believe is built out

[1:33:03] We're very close to it and we've had a handful there and just a couple and

[1:33:10] the one across my

[1:33:14] » Prairie Sky. >> Okay. Um what about what about future

[1:33:18] subdivisions? >> Future subdivision.

[1:33:22] » Yeah. So so example, there's there's new homes that are going to be going in that

[1:33:25] are actually uphill from me. I have water pressure issues in Corbin

[1:33:28] crossings in the morning as was demonstrated. Um

[1:33:34] that area would be impacted as well. Correct.

[1:33:36] » Um I don't I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're getting out by the

[1:33:40] top hill. >> Um so so literally physically higher

[1:33:43] than where my house is. >> Um there are additional buildable lots,

[1:33:49] higher elevation. Yeah. Would those potentially be having the same issue as

[1:33:52] I'm having? >> I couldn't speak to that because it

[1:33:56] hasn't hasn't been built yet. I believe you'd be talking about the one just

[1:33:59] north of you, >> the subdivision. Uh yeah, I think so.

[1:34:02] Yeah. >> Yeah. I haven't seen seen anything on

[1:34:05] that plans.

[1:34:11] » So I guess if we my question to council would be if you would consider a

[1:34:17] an area where where a moratorum would need to go

[1:34:23] until we are able to complete our water master plan on whatever conditions it is

[1:34:26] that you identify. What would that area be? Would it be would it be BL South?

[1:34:33] Would it be Lancaster South? Would it be where where would you anticipate that

[1:34:40] being, >> Mr. Mayor? Based on what you're

[1:34:43] questioning, I think an elevation study would have to be done in order to be

[1:34:47] able to see what is higher or what is lower because there are definitely areas

[1:34:50] in the subdivision that's to the north of you that is quite a bit lower

[1:34:54] elevation than you are. Uh once you get over the hill as as someone that runs it

[1:35:00] almost daily, I can tell you that I have to go uphill.

[1:35:03] [laughter] >> But you also have a downhill section. So

[1:35:07] » I I Yeah, I also live in a trough, right? So yeah, the area behind me was

[1:35:11] built up for the development behind me to the north of my house. It used to be

[1:35:17] flat. It got built up. I'm not suggesting

[1:35:23] uh a moratorum at all, but if you're going to look at that, you'd have to I

[1:35:27] would say you'd have to tie it to an elevation threshold.

[1:35:31] » Do we have anything like that or would that be a new study?

[1:35:33] » We have to look into that and see what those elevations are and where the the

[1:35:37] problems are because if we tie it to an elevation, we'd have to look at that. I

[1:35:42] don't we don't have any data on that. We haven't done any data on that. We

[1:35:47] haven't done surveys on that. We have some elevation charge from the county,

[1:35:53] but those are pretty big uh numbers in between. So, you'd have to be a little

[1:35:58] bit more detailed than that. But again, uh just to back up what I said before,

[1:36:05] uh I think your problem is in irrigation, not in development. And

[1:36:10] therefore, uh saying that not doing any water

[1:36:14] conservation methods first. One of the requirements in the uh code is that you

[1:36:19] have to list your less restrictive alternatives and why either they didn't

[1:36:24] work or why you're not doing them. And as we've looked at it, we've seen that

[1:36:30] the most of this stuff happens in the June, July, August time frame. Uh yeah,

[1:36:36] there's no way even a moratorum can go into effect until September. And by

[1:36:41] September, you've already dropped in the pressure tissue problems. If you look at

[1:36:46] your sheet, you basically have no complaints uh over a four-year period

[1:36:51] from September to January. >> January being the first set of

[1:36:56] complaints. I think there was two in October.

[1:36:59] » Sorry, Leon. I I think to to that point, um, if if the city is able to negotiate

[1:37:05] and and I I don't want to get into too details because we have it on the

[1:37:09] agenda, negotiate a new site for a water tower, what is the soonest, and maybe

[1:37:13] Kevin, this is a question for you. What is the soonest that water tower would be

[1:37:16] completed? >> Well, certainly it depends on the size.

[1:37:22] Two, depends on the location. three to erect uh a tank of that. Um I

[1:37:29] haven't built a tank in 20 years. Um but I'm thinking you're probably looking at

[1:37:35] a year and a half, two years of time. >> So another year and a half or two years

[1:37:38] of summertime possibly catastrophic issues. [clears throat]

[1:37:43] » [snorts] >> Now, with that said, mayor, um the

[1:37:46] ability to sink another well is much less in time frame.

[1:37:56] » And that property would the >> quote unquote property would would be

[1:38:01] able to accommodate a well and a tower. >> Correct. Yes.

[1:38:07] Is there a reason we're not utilizing the Majestic Water Tower? If if we have

[1:38:12] issues, >> can we

[1:38:16] Matt, I'm going to let uh Chris explain it to you from an operational standpoint

[1:38:20] because it's it'll make more sense that way. But

[1:38:23] » Okay. So, from an operational standpoint, with the installation of the

[1:38:26] booster pack, the 50,000galon tank will just sit there idle, which leads to

[1:38:32] water quality issues, stagnation, things like that, cuz our tanks are actually

[1:38:35] mounted sealed. >> Makes sense.

[1:38:37] » So, you have to keep turning over. >> So, wouldn't with the booster pack, it

[1:38:41] wouldn't actually use the water. Is that what you're saying?

[1:38:43] » It would fill it and it would just stay there.

[1:38:44] » Stay full. >> Okay. And yeah, deq would get involved.

[1:38:48] Yeah. [clears throat]

[1:38:51] Any

[1:38:55] other? Larry, you're up next. >> Okay, Laura, that was articulate. Thank

[1:39:00] you. Um, I I appreciate your concerns, but first

[1:39:06] and foremost, those of us on this board right here

[1:39:10] have an obligation to take care of the citizens of Rather. And part of that is

[1:39:14] the property owners, part of that is our citizens. And we're going down a road

[1:39:21] that I don't think we want to go down at this point. The reason I say that is a

[1:39:26] lot of key words there. Preliminary. We don't have our water study yet.

[1:39:31] Everything in there. Yeah. Jub came and made a good presentation,

[1:39:36] but he kept saying this is preliminary. This is preliminary. This is

[1:39:39] preliminary. We've talked to our experts, two here and the one at JUB,

[1:39:45] and we're all waiting for our water study, which is very close. We've been

[1:39:50] working on this for a long, long time. Like Kevin said, he's been wanting the

[1:39:54] well, wanting to find a well for what, nine years now?

[1:39:57] » A tank. >> 10 or a tank, I mean. And we've been

[1:40:00] saving for it. We've been working on this and it's coming together.

[1:40:04] But I go back to the road we don't want to go down. If we

[1:40:10] if we we have to claim imminent peril to our city to do a moratorum

[1:40:17] and which is the health, safety and welfare of our citizens.

[1:40:22] Imminent peril needs to come up with it has to be issues have to be occurring

[1:40:27] continuously predictability or is likely to occur in

[1:40:33] a way that clearly creates health, safety or welfare issues. Our charts

[1:40:38] that we saw today and everything we've seen, those are not continuous.

[1:40:42] Continuous isn't 3 hours. Continuous isn't 25 minutes. Continuous is it's a

[1:40:49] problem and we aren't coming out of it. Okay. I can't see right now a reason for

[1:40:55] a moratorum. Now, after we get our water study and our

[1:41:01] hydraulic figures come out and go, you have a problem here and we have to fix

[1:41:05] it. and then I'll be the first one to vote for a moratorum if I think there's

[1:41:09] a problem. But right now, we're going down a road we don't want to go and

[1:41:14] protecting our citizens. And the reason I say that is if we do if we do a

[1:41:19] moratorum and it's not right and we jump put the cart before the horse, we're

[1:41:24] going to get our butt sued big time and it's going to cost millions of dollars

[1:41:29] and you people are going to be paying for it. Okay? Our city can't afford

[1:41:33] that. Let's be patient. Let's sit back. Let's look at all the facts. Let's

[1:41:37] gather everything. It's what we've been doing, the charts, everything else. You

[1:41:41] guys have been doing a great job and our attorneys been doing a great job and

[1:41:45] trying to steer us in the right direction. I'm not saying we don't have

[1:41:48] a problem. I'm not saying we don't have a problem to the point of imminent

[1:41:52] peril. Now, not jumping ahead again like the mayor said, but our next item on the

[1:41:58] agenda is new business and consideration of a resolution acknowledging

[1:42:03] preliminary preliminary water concerns and directing our staff. That's what

[1:42:08] we've been doing for months. We've brought this subject up almost every

[1:42:12] city council meeting for three or four months and we haven't gotten any closer

[1:42:17] to resolving the issue as we are tonight. There's so many unanswered

[1:42:21] questions. What do you think? What do you think? Sorry. What do you think is

[1:42:24] causing that, Larry? That we're not getting any closer?

[1:42:26] » I mean, are you saying that staff isn't doing their jobs? We're not collecting

[1:42:29] data? What What does that mean? >> Don't put words in my mouth.

[1:42:31] » No, I'm asking you what that mean. >> Well, and that's I'm getting to that.

[1:42:34] We're we're we're getting all of our facts together. What I'm saying is is

[1:42:37] we're not getting any closer. And I think having this [clears throat] on the

[1:42:41] I think what we did is we um we tabled it to this meeting, right? because we

[1:42:47] talked about it last meeting and we haven't we've actually gotten a lot

[1:42:50] farther because Leon and everybody's brought a bunch of charts together,

[1:42:53] brought a bunch of facts together, your your uh uh the memos that you gave us on

[1:42:59] the water pressures and stuff, those are all great, but that don't get us any

[1:43:02] closer to resolving it. I think we're not going to resolve it until we get our

[1:43:07] water study plan and put our put our experts together on that because we need

[1:43:12] to listen to our experts. I don't know anything about it, but I do know that if

[1:43:17] we go down the wrong road, we're gonna get our butts sued and I don't want to

[1:43:20] be a part of that and I won't sign off on that.

[1:43:25] » That's fair. Can you >> And I think we one more thing. Oh, no.

[1:43:28] Go ahead. >> The less restrictive

[1:43:31] ways to fix our water do through mitigation or odd and even watering. I

[1:43:37] know it's an inconvenience, but conservation, I think, and education,

[1:43:42] educating the other people and and Laura made a comment at one of the other

[1:43:46] meetings that this seems to be a seasonal problem. And I think we've

[1:43:50] witnessed that tonight is that looking at our water use or it is seasonal. It's

[1:43:56] about a three or four month long ordeal and we're coming into about 6 weeks left

[1:44:02] of irrigation time and then we're going to our water is going to go way down.

[1:44:06] So, um, is that going to affect the pressure? It seems to, but I don't know.

[1:44:11] I don't have a water pressure problem at my house, but or I I do notice a little

[1:44:16] less water pressure when I'm irrigating, but not enough to where it falls below

[1:44:22] what I feel is a safe and healthy standard.

[1:44:26] Okay. So my my opinion is let's drop this and wait till our water plan find

[1:44:33] out the facts and then make a decision. That's fair points, Larry. Absolutely.

[1:44:39] So can you can you help me understand a little bit better what you consider the

[1:44:42] welfare of the citizens to be because you mentioned that earlier as as

[1:44:48] one of the criteria. >> And what is your opinion?

[1:44:51] » Well, no, I'm asking you. I I'm not asking for my definition. I I

[1:44:57] think I think mental well-being of our citizens is a high priority for me,

[1:45:02] right? And and my definition, right? And and I can't tell you the innumerable

[1:45:07] amount of people, including me, who if I wake up at 5 in the morning and go to

[1:45:12] take a shower and there's no water pressure, I'm going to be honest, I'm a

[1:45:15] little peeved that day. >> But does that affect your welfare?

[1:45:18] » It it it affects your attitude. >> It affects my well-being. Yes. But

[1:45:22] that's not your >> But I'm asking what your definition of

[1:45:24] wellbeing is. >> Well, welfare is is the city to provide

[1:45:28] for its people. [clears throat] It's our it's our responsibility to pro provide

[1:45:32] them with water and police in fire and all that kind of stuff. That's my

[1:45:38] opinion. I I I can't speak for you or them or who about how your welfare is.

[1:45:45] Okay? That's that's a loose term and I I can't really answer that. I'm sorry. I

[1:45:49] can't. But that's the but that is the let me put it this way that is the way

[1:45:55] the law is written for a uh imminent or an imminent domain or not imminent

[1:46:02] domain but a um moratorum on imminent peril and it has to be it affects the

[1:46:09] the health and welfare of the of the citizens. Okay, a judge is going to

[1:46:14] decide that and I think a good attorney can tear that apart and I can't. I'm not

[1:46:19] an attorney and I don't have Webster's dictionary in front of me. So, I don't

[1:46:23] mean to be rude or disrespectful, but I can't answer that question. I think how

[1:46:28] you're trying to get me to answer. >> No, no, I'm not trying to get you to I'm

[1:46:31] just trying to understand your perspective [clears throat] and and and

[1:46:34] you know, you you mentioned water, you know, the city's responsibility to

[1:46:39] provide water. Um I I guess maybe more broadly would you consider mental

[1:46:44] well-being as part of the welfare of the city?

[1:46:46] » Well, let me put it to you this way. Okay, if we did a moratorum

[1:46:51] and we were wrong, which I think right now we are

[1:46:56] very wrong. We aren't even close to having enough documentation to do it.

[1:47:02] Think of the consequences of a moratorum. Will that have a greater

[1:47:05] impact on our welfare of our citizens because they're going to have to pay out

[1:47:09] of their nose to pay for the legal fees and everything or can they be can we

[1:47:14] wait a little bit longer um until our experts find out the facts. Not only do

[1:47:20] we affect the welfare of the citizens of Raptor and this will affect some of them

[1:47:24] but if we put a moratorum on building that's going to affect the contractors

[1:47:29] the the asphalt guys the landscapers the plumbers the sheetrock guys the framers

[1:47:35] the electricians the and go and building supply companies they're all going to

[1:47:40] get affected very strongly and that's going to affect a lot of people and

[1:47:45] you're going to have a lot of people attacking you and I don't want to be a

[1:47:49] part of that right now. It's not it's I'm not saying it ain't going to

[1:47:54] happen. I'm going to say it's not now. Now is not the time. We don't have

[1:47:58] enough facts and information to do a definitive. Yes, we need a moratorum.

[1:48:04] Okay. And I think to address what you said about a continuous um you know

[1:48:11] issue, I I I'm not going to quote the city attorney directly, but essentially

[1:48:14] what was said is what it really boils down to is the attorney's ability to

[1:48:18] argue what is continuous, >> right? It's pretty subjective.

[1:48:23] » True. And and the opposing attorney that's going to sue us, they're they're

[1:48:28] pretty >> their ability to argue it as well. Yeah.

[1:48:30] And and and that's my point is I'm not feeling comfortable that we're at that

[1:48:35] point yet to where we can go to bat and get that done and and try to fix the

[1:48:40] problem. I think we need to wait for our water study. You know, Albert Einstein,

[1:48:45] they say he said this, but he didn't. But the definition of insanity, and

[1:48:49] that's doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting different

[1:48:52] results and then feeling like that's where we are. We keep going over and

[1:48:56] over and over and over on this, expecting different results, and we

[1:48:59] aren't there yet. We aren't going to get results till we get the facts and we

[1:49:03] don't have the facts yet. We need the water study. We need more input like

[1:49:07] charge like Leon did and things. That all takes time and and we've been

[1:49:12] working on it. We've been working on it for a long time. We're just not there

[1:49:15] yet. >> But but we have enough of a water study

[1:49:19] to identify the most optimal place to put a new wire water tower.

[1:49:24] Kevin,

[1:49:28] » uh, a couple things, Mayor. Uh, we actually looked at, uh, several

[1:49:32] different locations, uh, for possibilities, um, for a new motor

[1:49:36] storage. Um, just happened to be that we had an

[1:49:41] opportunity um, come before us on a different landings matter that we uh,

[1:49:47] approached that property owner about that bus.

[1:49:52] I I suggested an alternative site. Was that researched at all?

[1:49:56] » Which site was that? >> Um the potential of purchasing the land

[1:50:00] in Brookshshire from Lakeland Joint School District.

[1:50:04] » Yeah, that would be a good spot as well. >> There's several good spots in there. U

[1:50:09] the majority of the spots we looked at were all in the southern part of the

[1:50:15] city uh corporate wise. Um, keep in mind, um, it's a construction cost

[1:50:22] situation at that point in time, uh, because if you pick, uh, a lower

[1:50:28] elevation, you're building a taller tank. Um, so we looked at it from a

[1:50:34] topographical standpoint uh, to try to determine which lands met that type of

[1:50:39] criteria, did the best value for construction that we could. In other

[1:50:43] words, not build it as tall as what we would if we were put it down into drill

[1:50:48] hole. >> Um those are exciting things.

[1:50:50] » What about replacing the current water tower?

[1:50:53] » We looked at that site as well. >> Because that's one of the high points in

[1:50:57] the city, isn't it? >> It is.

[1:50:59] » Okay. So, shorter water tower. >> We looked at that actually that was a

[1:51:02] favorable location as well. Um, some of that comes into play with uh the overall

[1:51:08] footprint that we're looking at for that, but we did look at that site and

[1:51:12] you were correct that would be a good site to put a water tower as well.

[1:51:16] » Right. Yeah. And sorry, we're starting to drift into one of our next topic. So,

[1:51:20] I want to kind of steer away from that. Um, and speaking of steering, I just I

[1:51:24] think you said something, Larry, that bothered me a little bit and I was

[1:51:27] hoping maybe you can clarify a little bit. No, no. Just just just a minute

[1:51:30] ago. And and um you made the statement that the city attorney is trying to

[1:51:35] steer us. Can you clarify that? >> Uh

[1:51:41] I don't understand. Well, I maybe that's a poor choice of words. She she is our

[1:51:46] legal counsel. Okay. If we are sitting here and she gives us guidance to do

[1:51:51] something a certain way and we don't do it that way, we're liable. But if and

[1:51:57] she won't defend us, but if she steers us to do something a certain way and we

[1:52:02] honor her words and trust her judgment, then we're protected. Okay? And and by

[1:52:08] steering us, I I that's probably that was probably a poor choice where it's

[1:52:12] more like guiding us and directing us in the paths that maybe we should consider

[1:52:18] because she knows the laws. She knows the legalities. I don't. I sell auto

[1:52:22] parts, you know. I I I trust her judgment because she's one of the

[1:52:26] experts. I trust their judgment over there because they're experts and I

[1:52:31] trust, you know, and that's why are they always right? No. But usually

[1:52:36] when they're not, they'll tell you. And and that that's what I mean by that by

[1:52:41] steering us. I don't mean she's, you know, proddding us to go a certain way.

[1:52:45] She's giving us legal guidance, which is her job, and she does a darn good job of

[1:52:50] it. So, does that answer your question? Right. Yeah. No, thank you. Appreciate

[1:52:54] that. >> Uh, is that everything you Sorry.

[1:52:57] » Uh, you had made comments about uh Emily's quote of uh what she can defend.

[1:53:03] » In that [clears throat] same memo, she also talked to you about what she felt

[1:53:07] continuous would be and continuous would be for a prolonged period of time in a

[1:53:12] 48 hour window. It would be [snorts] close to a a 23 24 hour period in the 48

[1:53:19] hour window. And and that is this our current city attorney's definition of

[1:53:23] what she would be able to defend, >> right? And that's what you were you were

[1:53:26] saying. What what can she defend? That's what I wanted to throw that out there.

[1:53:30] » Thank you. No, I appreciate that. Thank you for the clarity. Larry, uh, sorry,

[1:53:33] Leon. Um, Larry, did you have anything else?

[1:53:36] » I think I stated my case. I think you know where I stand,

[1:53:39] » right? Uh, Matt, uh, Chris, can you help me understand these uh, work orders?

[1:53:47] Some of them don't have a scheduled date and a time, but they have a result.

[1:53:53] » Um, basically in our work queue, they get sent out and um, they come to me and

[1:53:58] I, you know, I hand them out to my employees and if you have an imperative

[1:54:04] maintenance thing that you have to do, it'll shift your time. So, it just gets

[1:54:08] you have to prioritize yourself to get those things done.

[1:54:11] » Okay. So, it's safe to say those that don't have a scheduled date and time

[1:54:14] were completed on or about the day it was filed.

[1:54:19] » That would be a fairly normal turnaround day, next day.

[1:54:24] » Okay. Um, we're talking about a moratorum on

[1:54:28] building and I'll say I'm trying to I'm trying to get pulled in one direction or

[1:54:34] or the other direction. But looking at the work orders, April 27, 2023, there

[1:54:40] was a reading of 92 PSI. Um, where's our street on this? In Santa Fe Street.

[1:54:47] Um, you know, I thumb through all this here. April 23, reading of 75 PSI. No

[1:54:54] low pressure found. Uh, Irish circle. So, there's quite a few of the no

[1:55:03] low pressure found on these work orders.

[1:55:09] Uh, here's here's another one. March 2024, the best reading he got was 70

[1:55:14] PSI. He checked again and he got 82. and that it's going to be a Cascade Street.

[1:55:23] So, what I'm getting at is this is to me not necessarily pointing at the culprit

[1:55:29] of low water pressure being the addition of new houses. Now, that's not to say

[1:55:35] that the addition of new houses creates more lawns to water,

[1:55:41] but when we're looking at decently good water pressure readings in

[1:55:47] months that I certainly hope people are not watering their lawn,

[1:55:54] it's high. And the lower ones are going to be the months that people are

[1:55:59] lowering their law, watering their lawns rather.

[1:56:02] So to me that's going to point to where staff is going when it comes to it's an

[1:56:08] irrigation is the culprit. The immediate culprit, potentially a secondary culprit

[1:56:13] could be building, but the immediate one with the data on

[1:56:18] these work orders is telling me is that it's

[1:56:23] it's something happening in the summer. And I think it's the data presented

[1:56:28] today is uh telling me it's water watering our lawns. I think it was 500%.

[1:56:34] Don't quote me on that, but we increase our water usage by 500%.

[1:56:39] uh in the summer. Additionally, um if we're if we're going to enact

[1:56:44] imminent peril, we we need to

[1:56:49] show what we have done. Now I without having wrath city code 8-1-12

[1:57:01] being set up which is going to be the water system emergencies

[1:57:06] which uh in the event of a water emergency as declared by the public

[1:57:09] works director the following actions may be put into immediate effect by the

[1:57:14] city. Uh the first thing a 8-1-12A is irrigation and sprinkling sprinkling

[1:57:23] restricted. Once a water emergency has been

[1:57:25] declared, the public works director may require that all or part of the citizens

[1:57:31] comply with the following water rationing schedule while the emergency

[1:57:35] is in effect. So, if we're saying that we're in a time

[1:57:40] of imminent peril, but we're also not enacting city code that we have for an

[1:57:47] emergency. That's what I'm struggling with. I don't know if there's anyone

[1:57:52] that's able to help me pop out of that struggle.

[1:57:55] » I I think the difference in my mind and and I think the city attorney could

[1:57:59] probably help here as well. Um, imminent peril means the potential of something

[1:58:03] happening. An emergency being there is something happening. So, let's say that

[1:58:09] their rather mountain catches fire. They're pulling from every hydrant that

[1:58:12] they can find. That is an emergency. The uh in this case, I believe it would be

[1:58:17] Chris could implement a water emergency and say, "All right, at this point, you

[1:58:23] know, commercial businesses, you can water on this uh Monday, Wednesday,

[1:58:26] Friday. Residents Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday." Right? I I think that's the

[1:58:31] difference. An active emergency versus the potential of an emergency.

[1:58:37] Fair enough.

[1:58:41] So then the the next thing that the the struggle that I've got here is is we've

[1:58:47] not gone below that 20 PSI. Now I would actually disagree with your estimate of

[1:58:54] where we're at when it hits a 20. that was above a 35 um on the reading. And my

[1:59:00] very quick math, 35 minus 13, I wrote it down, is 22.

[1:59:06] So that's not 20. I don't I'm not a water expert. I don't know how much PSI

[1:59:11] uh that two PSI matters, but it does matter between 20 and 19. And so we've

[1:59:17] got a difference of two from 20 to 22. So I read that as 22.

[1:59:21] A measurable deficiency

[1:59:26] I would argue we have a measurable deficiency. We have a deficiency in our

[1:59:29] water system. Is that deficiency leading us to an

[1:59:34] imminent peril? The threat of

[1:59:38] welfare or harming the welfare of the citizens.

[1:59:44] I I'm not sure it does. >> That doesn't mean we don't have a

[1:59:48] problem. >> Yeah. Sorry. What was the fire

[1:59:50] department's response to that? >> Did Did they respond at all? That's my

[1:59:54] next part here >> on Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

[1:59:56] » Yeah, you're good. The the fire department um commented on their uh

[2:00:00] their memo. If you've got the packet, it's page 43 of the PDF and it's the

[2:00:06] last sentence and it goes into page 44. Currently, there are no concerns from

[2:00:11] the fire department regarding the pressures or the adequacy of the water

[2:00:14] systems in raft. He also notices that the hydrants within

[2:00:19] the city are required to be periodically tested and maintained.

[2:00:25] So we have our our fire department saying that they

[2:00:30] don't have a concern.

[2:00:35] That is all I have. Okay.

[2:00:40] I don't know what's left.

[2:00:46] I think there's obviously a problem in Brookshshire, but

[2:00:50] um the water readings that Leon showed us, uh the HOA is using four times the

[2:00:58] amount of water an acre. And that's where the majority of the

[2:01:03] problems are coming from. The majority of the complaints for water

[2:01:08] pressure problems are coming out of Brookshshire, which the HOA is using

[2:01:11] four times the amount of water to water one acre. They're also the largest

[2:01:18] usage user of water in we're after. I think some education needs to happen

[2:01:24] there. >> That's just the HOA, not the city,

[2:01:28] » right? That's not the residence. That's just the HOA water and green space.

[2:01:35] Well, I don't I don't So, based on based on the actual workhold orders, so I I'll

[2:01:40] ask you, Chris, are the majority of these in Brookshshire? The people that

[2:01:45] have actually taken the time to request us to come out and do readings. Are the

[2:01:48] majority in Brookshshire? >> I would have to look at it again to make

[2:01:51] sure, but there is a number from say

[2:01:58] absolutely

[2:02:14] And and to your point, Ken, I think anecdotally the majority of the

[2:02:17] complaints I get are from people in Brookshshire.

[2:02:19] » Yeah. >> Right.

[2:02:19] » I mean, that's that's what I'm getting, too.

[2:02:22] » Yeah. >> But I mean, [clears throat and cough]

[2:02:24] there's definitely a problem, but it I'm thinking it might lie in Brookshshire.

[2:02:28] The answer So, I mean, I don't I don't see it

[2:02:33] fitting it's not fitting imminent peril there. I mean, if you put a moratorum,

[2:02:38] how's that going to solve any problem? They're still going to have a low water

[2:02:40] pressure in Brookshire.

[2:02:44] » Even if we don't build another house, >> even if you don't build another house,

[2:02:47] there's still got a water pressure problem

[2:02:51] because there's more water being used there than anywhere else.

[2:02:55] » Mr. Mayor, I believe Leon said that Golden Spike was the

[2:03:02] » highest. >> So it between the two months they're

[2:03:06] basically average there. >> Okay. In one of them they were higher.

[2:03:09] » One was higher in one month and one was higher in the other month. So

[2:03:12] » how did they compare elevation wise? >> I had no idea.

[2:03:18] » So one's at the top of our water supply and the other one's at the bottom of the

[2:03:22] water supply. It would stand a reason. Kevin, maybe you can give me the John's

[2:03:26] an idiot answer here. um the lower altitude would tend to have higher water

[2:03:33] pressure versus the higher altitude having lower

[2:03:36] water pressure. All things being >> Yeah. typically the way our water system

[2:03:41] is set up, it would be dependent upon of course that

[2:03:44] » So would would Golden Spike, even though they're using more water, would they

[2:03:48] realize a low pressure scenario before say Brookshshire

[2:03:54] or would Brookshshire realize it first being higher?

[2:03:58] Mayor, the difficulty is saying it off the cuff on one way or waiting until we

[2:04:06] actually have that master. I know. [cough and clears throat]

[2:04:09] » There you go. >> Well, I think the I think the problem is

[2:04:15] that we're we're making decisions tonight on our agenda based on an

[2:04:18] incomplete master plan. We're asking for a water tower when we don't have a wa

[2:04:23] master plan to show us that that is the most optimal place to put it.

[2:04:30] So I don't think we can talk out of both sides of our mouth on this. Now that's

[2:04:33] for a couple items down the line, but you

[2:04:37] know I I don't know that we can say definitively one way or another. I I

[2:04:42] agree with you. You know, I I'm begging people, you know,

[2:04:47] um Chris has got my my list, but you know, we don't hardly anybody has

[2:04:52] actually filed a complaint with the city. If you're having water pressure

[2:04:56] issues, now I was told when I asked originally, and I know it has changed

[2:05:00] since then, that there was not someone available at, you know, 5:00 a.m. to

[2:05:05] come measure the water pressure of my house. Now, we can hook something up

[2:05:08] 24/7 and we can measure it and see, you know, is it as is it as bad as I

[2:05:14] perceive when I get into the shower and the water comes out like this versus

[2:05:18] straight, you know, may maybe it's not as bad as I think it is. Maybe that

[2:05:22] difference in PSI isn't is maybe there isn't as much of a

[2:05:26] difference as I think there is. >> Well, there's a difference between

[2:05:29] volume and pressure, okay? And we're talking the gallons of usage for you

[2:05:35] know let's say rad or majest golden spine they used x amount of gallons

[2:05:41] that's volume has nothing to do with pressure

[2:05:46] can be affected by many different things the diameter of the line uh various

[2:05:51] other things right like you were just saying so we

[2:05:53] » hydraulic >> yeah hydraulic the hydraulic modeling is

[2:05:57] going to identify a lot of this So, um, understood. So, Chris,

[2:06:04] » uh, Mr. Mayor, I count just quick count was nine.

[2:06:07] » Nine out of Sorry, how many was it? 39. [laughter]

[2:06:10] » It's on the front page. I got it. I got it. So, so nine out of

[2:06:13] » 39. >> Nine out of 39 were in Brookshire. So

[2:06:16] the so the majority of these in areas where historically you know maybe high

[2:06:22] water pressure I'm thinking right street you know where you know

[2:06:26] » what I was getting at though is where the problems were.

[2:06:29] » So the on the rest of the 30 there was no problems found.

[2:06:33] » Mhm. [clears throat] >> But there was low water pressure in

[2:06:36] Brookshire. >> Yeah.

[2:06:38] » Yeah. That's what good point.

[2:06:43] Was there anything else?

[2:06:48] » No, that's that's all I had. >> Okay,

[2:06:51] » Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to point out that if the council were to do an

[2:06:56] ordinance uh for moratorum, we have the choice to select either an emergency or

[2:07:02] an interim one and they are different. >> Okay.

[2:07:06] » What are the differences? The difference [laughter]

[2:07:09] [gasps] uh

[2:07:10] » the emergency is six months and the interim is a year

[2:07:14] » is a year >> although we have the option to make it

[2:07:17] six months if we wanted to >> and mortoriiums can be extended

[2:07:24] » that's more of an Emily question >> do it at the end to show what you've

[2:07:27] done and everything else but u I think there is also a limitation of time

[2:07:33] between the moratoriums you can't just go from one into the other you have to

[2:07:38] have a time period in between. Without my legal expertise [laughter] next to

[2:07:44] me, I wouldn't be able to tell you what that is.

[2:07:46] » Right.

[2:07:50] » Right. So, this is an action item. It is consideration of adopting of findings of

[2:07:57] imminent peril related to water system pressure concerns for an emergency

[2:08:00] moratorum ordinance. So, council, how would you like to proceed?

[2:08:03] » Mr. Mayor, based on what we've been through tonight in the last several

[2:08:09] meetings and all the information we have, I make a motion that we deny the

[2:08:14] consideration of adoption of findings of imminent peril related to our water

[2:08:19] system pressure concerns for an emergency moratorum ordinance. And

[2:08:25] again, like I said last meeting, let's wait till we get our water study.

[2:08:31] » Okay. And I have to be sure that I understand what it is that you're

[2:08:33] saying. You're saying that we should deny the findings.

[2:08:37] » We deny the consideration to adopt the findings. We deny We deny what we're act

[2:08:43] our action item is. >> All right. Motion made. Is there a

[2:08:45] second? >> Second. All right. 10 seconds.

[2:08:47] Commission. >> Further discussion. Thank you. Um

[2:08:54] what's the repercussion if it gets denied? Are we able to bring it back as

[2:08:58] an action item? you can bring it back as an action item. Matter of fact, Larry's

[2:09:02] motion was to uh until we had the results of our water study.

[2:09:09] » Mr. Mayor, I wanted to point out that I did ask JUB engineers about the

[2:09:15] preliminary findings and if they expected there to be any differences in

[2:09:19] the final report and they indicated that no, that

[2:09:24] there were not expecting it to be any different in the final report.

[2:09:33] And I I'll say from my part, you know, I I totally understand from an engineering

[2:09:37] perspective where Kevin's coming from. You know, that that data matters. Um you

[2:09:43] know, I think one of the most um honestly upsetting things that I heard

[2:09:48] from JUB was additional data isn't going to make a difference in the accuracy of

[2:09:53] their water study and that the accuracy is 90%. Um I I just feel like in the

[2:10:00] court of law that's just 10% is a big margin to argue against,

[2:10:06] » you know. So So we my concern is that that you're that the council is hinging

[2:10:12] everything on this water study when in reality water studies get picked apart

[2:10:18] every day throughout the country. So in light of that, yes, we we expect

[2:10:23] the we got a prelim everything again. We're talking preliminary and I think

[2:10:28] we're preliminary on an imminent barrel or a moratorum, but September is our

[2:10:35] agreement sometime in September for our water study. December is where we're

[2:10:42] going to be able to plug in by December, we're supposed to be able to plug in our

[2:10:46] our modeling and our hydraulic things. That's where we're going to find our

[2:10:50] answers. We're not going to get our answers in September.

[2:10:54] » Well, I want to correct that. >> And I Okay,

[2:10:57] » jump in here. >> We'll be able to do modeling for our

[2:11:00] current system, which means we'd be able to model where we could do water towers

[2:11:05] and even in trying to be cautious of our other thing. It would tell us that even

[2:11:12] we picked anywhere in the city how tall that water tower would need to be

[2:11:17] because anywhere in the city would work. We just have to change the height of

[2:11:22] that whether it's 2 ft or 25 ft. But that's what the model will tell us is

[2:11:31] part and the design factor of that water tower if I'm not mistaken. Kevin, is

[2:11:36] that accurate? Well, there's >> it's a little bit more complicated than

[2:11:41] that. >> I'm dumbing it down in an account view.

[2:11:45] » What I'm I that's what I mean by my point. We aren't going to know till

[2:11:49] we're able to plug those into the system. So, we don't have any answers

[2:11:54] today and we're we're not going to have until we get that study and do that.

[2:11:59] » Mr. Mayor, one sorry, one second. Let can we let Kevin

[2:12:04] finish his statement and we'll go back to you. with regards to the

[2:12:09] the whole conversation about the water storage tank and the you know production

[2:12:13] well a lot of that came from me um and the reason why is is we're putting

[2:12:19] together operating budgets for the upcoming fiscal year and I wanted to

[2:12:24] make sure that was on the radar um and part of being on the radar was just to

[2:12:29] make sure we can start identifying potential what those costs are and then

[2:12:33] demonstrated to the city council that we had those funds at things. So, forgive

[2:12:38] me as far as water storage tank. Let me be clear. Um, I would like to build a

[2:12:45] water storage tank. Locationwise,

[2:12:48] yeah, that's something that we'll certainly need to model and make sure we

[2:12:52] put that in the most appropriate spot. Most appropriate being one, location

[2:12:56] from a hydraulic standpoint. two, uh, if it's any any in any sensitive type areas

[2:13:03] such as if it's encumbered by, you know, who knows what or if the land's

[2:13:08] particularly expensive, those type of things, um, would come into play. But

[2:13:12] the main thing was I just wanted to get on city council's radar because pretty

[2:13:17] soon you're going to be finalizing an operating budget. And if I didn't get

[2:13:22] out in front of that um and request it, then either one you'd have to open up

[2:13:28] the budget during the middle of the year for a very large ticket item or take

[2:13:32] ticket items. Um so I just want to make sure I was being clear that I was trying

[2:13:37] to be proactive on that. I'm not trying to and mayor, I do appreciate what

[2:13:41] you're saying as far as talking it out both sides of my mouth as far as whether

[2:13:45] or not we have a model says we need it and here's some potential locations.

[2:13:50] We're not done yet. Um, but we're getting really, really close. Um, and I

[2:13:55] think we have a very good indication of where the location's going to be,

[2:13:59] particularly based upon a lot of this conversations we've had over the last

[2:14:04] six plus months. Um, so confidence level is going high, but it's not 100% yet.

[2:14:11] So, I just I wanted to throw that out there for clarification just to make

[2:14:15] sure that we're not hinging any decisions based upon some of those

[2:14:20] preliminary comments because they were more from a fiscal standpoint more so

[2:14:25] than anything. Well, and you know, I think you know,

[2:14:31] also along those same lines, you know, J Jub did say that, you know, we would we

[2:14:36] would have current state

[2:14:40] in September. >> Correct.

[2:14:41] » Right. From a model. >> That is correct.

[2:14:43] » Um and then it sounded like at the earliest December for future state.

[2:14:48] » Correct. >> Right. So, so again, you know, we aren't

[2:14:52] going to be able to tell in September based on the current number of future

[2:14:58] projects that we have approved within the city where that water tower is going

[2:15:02] to be the best fit. Right? >> Do you see what I'm saying?

[2:15:05] » But, mayor, what we'll do is what that September study will allow us to do is

[2:15:09] identify if we do have deficiencies or needs. Therefore, is there a capital

[2:15:14] improvement program that would remedy or provide solutions to those existing

[2:15:21] problems. Next would be the ability to start plugging in, you know, a potential

[2:15:28] new development here or there and seeing how it would perform in our water system

[2:15:33] or if it would trigger any type of act, you know, actions such as mitigating

[2:15:38] factors about, hey, we actually probably need to go back and increase the line of

[2:15:43] this, you know, this main or tie this and interop it or those type of things.

[2:15:47] That's what the Decemberish uh master plan information will have the

[2:15:54] ability to allow us in detail. But September wise, it's simply going to

[2:15:59] look at our existing distribution system, see if there's weaknesses or

[2:16:04] deficiencies and what are those, you know, what do we need to consider to

[2:16:09] possibly resolve those issues. So, as a city without the ability to forward look

[2:16:16] and knowing that we have

[2:16:20] low low periods now, um you know, whether it be 22 PSI or

[2:16:26] [clears throat and cough] 20 PSI, how are we

[2:16:29] or how is the council supposed to make a determination of as the new houses come

[2:16:35] online? um you know and and we have

[2:16:39] neighborhoods under construction now what the what the impact of that's going

[2:16:42] to be how would you make that determination give a recommendation to

[2:16:45] the council without a model >> so mayor I think I've mentioned uh a few

[2:16:50] times especially at the last council meeting I don't believe we're close to

[2:16:54] imminent peril I I think that short of pounding my fist on the table

[2:16:59] last city council meeting um I advocated very heavily for u water conservation

[2:17:06] particularly education. I repeated myself far too many times during that

[2:17:11] meeting and said the same thing over and over again.

[2:17:15] You're going to hear right now again. We need to implement some water

[2:17:19] conservation education. I think that would be the most appropriate step. It

[2:17:24] gets you your biggest bang for the buck. Um is it immediate? No. Did we adjust

[2:17:30] water rates and then people got a water bill and did that have immediate impact

[2:17:34] on how they functioned and conserve their water? It did. I think that we

[2:17:41] have intelligent residents that could understand um or could benefit from a

[2:17:47] lot of these um water conservation education tools that we could utilize.

[2:17:52] That would get us would carry us a long way. But I

[2:17:57] certainly think that's a step that we need to go down and pursue. And if it

[2:18:00] doesn't work, then we pursue the next step. And that's because you

[2:18:04] [clears throat] actually start finding people that are [snorts] violating

[2:18:08] particular rules that may be employees. Um that's a much more drastic step, but

[2:18:13] education always seems to work. Um, we talk about educating people on speed

[2:18:18] limits and, you know, traffic safety incidents and we do, you know, DUI

[2:18:24] increased enforcement because it's certain times of the year when that type

[2:18:27] of activity happens. Well, how is water conservation any different than any one

[2:18:33] of those separate stewardship programs? >> Well, and I think believe it is.

[2:18:37] » Yeah. part part of the problem that I have and unfortunately without the city

[2:18:39] attorney here tonight, we can't have her weigh in. But, you know, at what point

[2:18:44] um you know, do fees become punitive and now we're opening up the city to

[2:18:48] liability? Um I I've said this before and I'll say it again. Um you know,

[2:18:53] Idaho is one of the greatest states in the country in terms of property rights.

[2:18:56] Um you know, it's why councils are up here. It's why we have the debates that

[2:18:59] we have, especially on land use items. Um you know, I'm able to do with my land

[2:19:04] as I please. Um, and now you're going to punish me because I have a small farm,

[2:19:10] you know, an agricultural farm. Um, you know, I provide for my family with a

[2:19:14] garden in my backyard and I can't use as much water and now I can't provide for

[2:19:17] them. Um, you know, things like that. Um, that I think that just leads down a

[2:19:23] concerning road from a city perspective to where now I understand what you're

[2:19:27] saying and you know, I made the suggestion to Rick Pine earlier, right?

[2:19:31] you know, maybe Brookshshire can reduce their water window and possibly even

[2:19:37] change it to in the evening. Maybe that would make a a big difference. You know,

[2:19:42] um I I agree with you. Education is important. Um I think we talked at the

[2:19:46] last meeting, Leon, about you know, back of water bill. Um you know, for the

[2:19:51] people that read that, possibly an article on the website, things like

[2:19:54] that. >> Do a flyer that goes out separate from

[2:19:56] the water bill. But we have the ability to do all those different things.

[2:20:00] » Yeah. >> Uh I just want to point out, mayor, you

[2:20:02] you mentioned like not being able to do what you want to do. Uh everybody has

[2:20:07] the choice of doing what they want to do and there are different consequences to

[2:20:12] our actions. If we want to use more water and it costs more money, then we

[2:20:16] can do that. If we don't want to do that, we can do that, too. Uh we're not

[2:20:21] shutting off your meter at 20,000 gallons, right? Uh, nobody is saying

[2:20:27] that in a water conservation effort that we're going to go out and shut off

[2:20:31] meters at 20, 50, or 100,000 gallons. It simply isn't that. If you want to use

[2:20:36] more power in your home and turn on two air conditioners rather than one, and

[2:20:41] you're willing to pay the bill for it, you can. Absolutely. If you want to use

[2:20:45] more water and you're willing to pay for it, you can. Absolutely. Conservation is

[2:20:50] an educational field. Nothing that I said is fines or penalties. We don't

[2:20:56] have an enforcement arm on this. Uh paying for the fact that we need to have

[2:21:02] more infrastructure to provide for irrigation is realistic.

[2:21:08] It's not unrealistic to say if you want to use 100,000 gallons, then you got to

[2:21:12] pay a higher premium because we have to have extra wells and extra storage tanks

[2:21:18] in order for you to be able to do that. But isn't that typically accounted for

[2:21:22] at the time that the applicants come in and want to do with their land? I mean,

[2:21:26] isn't that the whole point of title 11, which we're discussing?

[2:21:30] » No, it's not. That title 11 is water mitigation to make sure that there's

[2:21:34] water available to those citizens that live there. Available is one thing as

[2:21:39] how much they use of that water is a completely different thing that is based

[2:21:43] off of the rates and how much you're willing to pay for the water that you

[2:21:47] receive. Everybody has that choice in every single thing that we do. If you

[2:21:51] want to go to the grocery store and buy donuts instead of broccoli, you can.

[2:21:56] » Yeah. But in the same Sorry, Leon. In the same argument, the people in the

[2:21:59] city are doing what they want to do already. They're paying the bills and

[2:22:03] the city is is arguably um having an issue keeping up at certain times. So,

[2:22:09] so I mean, I think you're just really kind of saying the same thing that I am,

[2:22:12] that yep, we have a problem now. We need a master plan. I understand that. Um, we

[2:22:17] need a hydraulic study completed so that we can actually see what that is. We

[2:22:21] need it refined after that so that we can see into the future. We can plug in

[2:22:24] new neighborhoods and see what the impact of those will be. Um, you know,

[2:22:29] Title 11 adds, you know, the the burden on the developer to do things like that,

[2:22:34] right? Traffic studies. Um, we we'll talk about it a little bit more later.

[2:22:38] Um but you know at the at the end of the day that doesn't solve our problem now

[2:22:42] you know and the problem is that you know I I am concerned in a in a fire

[2:22:49] season we're going into another red flag warning. Um in fact I think we're in it

[2:22:52] now. um you know that one fire is going to

[2:22:59] catastrophically wipe out portions of our city

[2:23:01] » because we don't have the water pressure to supply the firefighting agencies

[2:23:08] and and I know you know Northern Lakes has done studies non- peak um I don't

[2:23:13] think any of those studies they've done are during peak periods is that correct

[2:23:16] Kevin or Chris >> have they done any fire hydrant tests

[2:23:20] during peak periods >> the ones we did with JUB

[2:23:24] in the early morning in July. I don't recall exactly weather, but

[2:23:28] » that was last year. >> Yeah, that was last year.

[2:23:32] » All right. Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought they said they

[2:23:34] were >> off peak seasons.

[2:23:36] » They won't they won't flow hydrants during the adverse weather type winter,

[2:23:42] spring, fall. They typically will want to exercise those hydrants during those

[2:23:48] summer time. Okay. >> Which I kind of

[2:23:53] » Yeah.

[2:23:57] » Was that Was that in the packet? Maybe I missed it when those were done.

[2:24:03] » Don't believe it was in the packet. I don't think it was any of the material

[2:24:06] we provided on this time. We tried to answer all the questions from the

[2:24:10] council. >> There were a lot of them.

[2:24:12] » There were a lot of question. >> What What did the city pay for that

[2:24:15] water city? >> Uh Kevin, do you have the answer for

[2:24:19] that? We we contracted with the water study in March of 2025.

[2:24:25] » Uh I don't remember the contract price. >> Laura Laura, [laughter]

[2:24:32] » what's the number? >> It was

[2:24:35] over $200,000. >> So with that in mind, wouldn't it be an

[2:24:39] injustice to the citizens not to let that complete the water study?

[2:24:44] » I don't think anybody's suggesting that. Well, we're we're talking about going

[2:24:47] off their preliminary. >> Yeah. That they said was not going to

[2:24:52] change between the time they submitted it and what they've already given us.

[2:24:55] » I don't think >> And why didn't they give it to us then?

[2:24:57] And >> yeah, why didn't they give it to

[2:24:59] » I can't from a technical perspective, I can't answer that. It's just, you know,

[2:25:03] but can I can I interject something? >> Well, we're we're talking back and

[2:25:07] forth, back and forth, back and forth here.

[2:25:10] That isn't going to change our our where we're going to be on our moratorum.

[2:25:16] We've already made a motion. We've already had it seconded.

[2:25:20] » And this is the discussion on >> I understand, but what we're talking

[2:25:23] about isn't going to affect that. We've been talking about that water study that

[2:25:29] » I mean it it may not for you and I I understand that you made the motion.

[2:25:33] Your mind is set. This is the way that it's going to be for your motion, right?

[2:25:36] So, sorry Kevin, you had something else. So, mayor, the one thing is, and we talk

[2:25:40] about completion of the water master plan, and the consultants made this

[2:25:45] crystal clear to me, is their their findings are going to be all

[2:25:51] or nothing. So, once they put their engineering stamp on that that master

[2:25:56] plan and sign it, that is what they're going to stand by. Um whether or not

[2:26:02] things change between now and then, um Lord, forgive me. I I haven't heard that

[2:26:08] um from them saying that. Um you claim that you have. I haven't. Um I work with

[2:26:14] them definitely more frequently than you do.

[2:26:18] Um so I would tell you that they're pretty going to be pretty adamant that

[2:26:23] they're not going to make any presentation with regards to any sort of

[2:26:27] mitigation or representation of deficiencies without finalizing

[2:26:33] um that report. and then that report getting accepted by DEEQ. And that

[2:26:40] should be written down in my comments to you in that long question and answers uh

[2:26:49] memo we have in in your council packet as well.

[2:26:53] So, I just want to be clear about that because we we complain to developers and

[2:26:58] contractors is making sure you're working from the most current set of

[2:27:02] drawings and a lot of those guys will come out and have a set of drawings if

[2:27:06] it doesn't have that engineering stamp over and we bang them over the head.

[2:27:11] Correct me if I'm wrong, but uh yeah, that's kind of what we do. Um,

[2:27:17] » which is why they're not here today. >> No, they're later. Yeah. Well, if they

[2:27:22] were going to stand by their preliminary report, then they would be here.

[2:27:25] » Well, there's other reasons, but you'll hear about that later.

[2:27:29] » Uh, it's out of scope of the contract. >> What's that?

[2:27:32] » It's out of scope of our contract. >> And Mr.

[2:27:37] » uh, if we find that there is imminent peril, we're going to have to fill this

[2:27:41] ordinance out. >> And frankly, I would look to staff to to

[2:27:46] help. we'd have to fill out section 2F which states less restrictive

[2:27:50] alternatives. The city council has considered the following less

[2:27:54] restrictive alternatives. Um if you're looking on the sheet that we have here,

[2:27:57] it's number seven. Um I'll start with staff and then I would like to open it

[2:28:00] up to council for it. But >> so I just got to make sure is this

[2:28:06] directly to the motion that's currently if we pass if we if I

[2:28:10] » I don't think we're required to fill it out right now. Uh Leon mentioned that

[2:28:15] we're not >> well I mentioned that if you if you

[2:28:18] found that there is there's findings that I would need to schedule a workshop

[2:28:24] » said Mr. Mayor knows not. >> Okay. And [snorts]

[2:28:31] » but that would be part of the findings.

[2:28:36] » And Lauran, can you restate the motion?

[2:28:42] » Made a motion to deny the adoption of the findings for imminent peril related

[2:28:48] to water system pressure concerns for an emergency moratorium ordinance until

[2:28:55] receive the final water study. >> Okay.

[2:28:59] » Thank you.

[2:29:03] » Any further discussion on denying the consideration of adoption of findings?

[2:29:20] I'm sorry. I'm really trying to wrap my head around what this says.

[2:29:22] Consideration of adopting of findings of imminent peril. So you're saying there

[2:29:26] is no imminent peril. >> Correct. That is exactly what I'm

[2:29:29] saying. >> Okay, perfect.

[2:29:31] » Larry, would you be able to Would you be willing to amend the ending? You have

[2:29:34] until the completion of the water study. What is the completion? We've got

[2:29:40] September. We've got December.

[2:29:45] » I'll leave that. Kevin, what is your opinion of the completion of the large

[2:29:49] lead when they like you said when they sign it or do you feel the hydraulic

[2:29:55] the hydraulic uh computer programming will help us in determining if if and

[2:30:02] where the problems are when I have a signed and sealed product.

[2:30:07] That's what I consider >> and that's what we're going to get in

[2:30:09] September. >> Yeah.

[2:30:11] » Okay. >> Again, that'll go to DEQ. Um and they

[2:30:15] will review it. You know, generally they will

[2:30:18] accept it or if they have questions, they will require us to

[2:30:22] » I realize everything goes through DEEQ and right now they're we're not poor

[2:30:28] standing with them. So >> I can't actually build things without

[2:30:32] DEQ. >> Yeah.

[2:30:34] » Does that does that help? >> So So to to simplify it, September

[2:30:39] » when he gets it. Yeah. >> When you get it, which is which is it's

[2:30:42] expected to be September. anticipated to be in se September.

[2:30:46] » I'm okay with that. Yeah, about that. >> Yes, September. [snorts]

[2:30:49] » So, change it to end of September.

[2:30:54] » No, the completion of our study when he Kevin said when he gets a engineered

[2:30:59] signed stamp notorized, here is your contract.

[2:31:04] » Yeah. Well, whatever. [laughter] Yeah.

[2:31:06] » Yeah. [snorts]

[2:31:12] And once you complete that, if you want to take the role, Larry,

[2:31:18] » Larry Sanders, >> yes.

[2:31:20] » Ken Owens, >> yes.

[2:31:22] » Matthew Surf, >> yes.

[2:31:26] » Laura F. >> Yes.

[2:31:29] » Motion passes. Moving on. First of all, everybody good to keep

[2:31:35] going? Okay. Um item number eight, new

[2:31:38] business, a consideration of resolution acknowledging preliminary water concerns

[2:31:43] and directing staff. >> Mr. Mayor, uh looking at this

[2:31:49] resolution, there is a couple of things that I want to point out. uh in this I'm

[2:31:54] going to pull it up on the uh

[2:32:01] there's a lot of bookmarks for the

[2:32:09] » I just had it too. Oh, I'm trying to pull up that.

[2:32:14] » So, on the on the resolution, uh, initially it talks about what the city

[2:32:19] has done uh recognizing cons uh concerns weren't prompt attention and

[2:32:26] professional continued professional review being a primary item on this. So,

[2:32:34] with this resolution, it's something that they actually can take action now

[2:32:38] and staff can be working on it now. Um we understand and acknowledge that the

[2:32:43] preliminary information provided to the city by city's employed and contract

[2:32:49] professionals including the city engineer public works director and JB

[2:32:53] engineering has identified concerns. So the following things are the things that

[2:32:58] we're getting direction from council to do. Completion of the water master plan

[2:33:04] on item two and [snorts] modeling. Item three, prioritizing and budgeting

[2:33:10] for needed water improvements. Again, that's what we are trying to do at

[2:33:14] passing budget. Uh reviewing water capitalization fees. Once the master

[2:33:21] plan is being completed, we'll review and update our water capitalization

[2:33:25] fees. This helps grow pay for the needed capitalization improvements.

[2:33:31] uh continue monitoring, monitoring, and water pressure readings, which we have

[2:33:36] continued to do, coordinate with DEEQ and the fire department. So, we'll be

[2:33:41] working with DEQ, Northern Lakes Fire Department to monitor our water system

[2:33:46] needs, water conservation efforts, um providing education, uh for water

[2:33:53] conservation, and

[2:33:56] addressing and focusing on education first.

[2:33:59] um review of our water rate fee structures.

[2:34:04] Again, this is what we did. We were able to do this last year and we saw a

[2:34:09] reduction in water use of approximately 500,000 gallons per day. Uh so we could

[2:34:16] review those water fees and see if there is an additional tier that needs to be

[2:34:20] added. Education on landscaping requirements.

[2:34:24] So although we do have a lot of green space in our town, our code does not

[2:34:29] require uh grass on everything. We do have the ability to do 50% green growing

[2:34:36] material. That does not necessarily mean grass. It could be bushes, it could be

[2:34:41] flowers, it could be a lot of different things. Um they also can do other green

[2:34:47] growing material. Uh they can also do a zero skate plan which we've adopted for

[2:34:53] multiple years but has not had a single individual present a plan for zero

[2:34:59] skating at this particular point so we can provide those indications.

[2:35:03] Um this doesn't adopt the moratorum but it does provide us with things that we

[2:35:08] can do immediately that to help working on the water conservation effort as well

[2:35:14] as continuing with the water master plan and other things. So before you mayor

[2:35:20] and council is this resolution for your consideration?

[2:35:24] » Uh Leon just for my edification

[2:35:30] what in this resolution are we not already doing?

[2:35:34] » So we have not looked at additional rate fee structures. We have not put out

[2:35:39] information on water conservation. We have not uh we have worked with the

[2:35:45] fire department but we haven't worked with DEEQ to this level. Um we have

[2:35:52] ordinances on landscaping requirements but we haven't provided education to the

[2:35:57] public on what those entail. So uh [clears throat] there are things that we

[2:36:03] have done uh with monitoring water pressure

[2:36:07] readings and there are other things that we have not done. So like the water

[2:36:10] capitalization fee is going to come in next and we're going to have to review

[2:36:14] that and see where there's a majority of this work is things that we still have

[2:36:18] yet to do. >> Okay.

[2:36:22] » But things that are currently planned >> and

[2:36:25] » regardless of the resolution is is my question. And then um and I know this is

[2:36:30] a question for Emily and you know I'm I'm

[2:36:35] not trying to direct the council in any way but you know my concern is that you

[2:36:40] know at some point um our increase in water fees is going

[2:36:46] to be considered punitive by probably a business in Rather. you know,

[2:36:52] being a lot of the people that use more water than than most other people and

[2:36:57] that that's going to leave lead to legal trouble.

[2:37:00] » Well, Mayor, we're not saying raise the water fees. We're saying look at them,

[2:37:05] review them, and present them. This isn't saying that we're going to raise

[2:37:10] them. Okay? That's still up to the council to decide. and the

[2:37:13] justifications when we come to you with that if we come to you with that ask

[2:37:21] it's still going to be up to the council mind you when staff puts together a

[2:37:27] alternate tier we would have to justify that and we would have to present that

[2:37:32] to you so that would be important to consider when you're making that

[2:37:37] consideration we have not done yet yet what this is saying is we will review it

[2:37:43] and we will work on it. >> Nothing in this resolution says we will

[2:37:47] adopt it. >> Okay.

[2:37:50] » So, this is more of a guide to steer steers that direction.

[2:37:57] » Yeah. You better stop saying that what to do [laughter]

[2:38:00] if I can. >> I couldn't resist that one.

[2:38:02] » One of the things that Matt said at the last council meeting is he wants to be

[2:38:06] able to do something now. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[2:38:09] » Correct. >> And this is great. Yeah. This is things

[2:38:11] that we can start doing right now and we can start doing this. Again, I'm not

[2:38:16] saying we haven't done anything. We have been working on this non-stop for a year

[2:38:20] and a half almost. >> Okay? It's been on council meetings. It

[2:38:24] has been talked about. Staff has purchased new equipment to help us in

[2:38:29] this process. Nothing is slowing down. If anything, it just seems to be

[2:38:33] speeding up what we're doing. So this is just direction to staff of what you want

[2:38:39] us to do. If you want to add to this resolution, we can add to this

[2:38:44] resolution. If you want to subtract from this resolution, we can subtract from

[2:38:47] it. We just have to take really good notes.

[2:38:51] » Mr. Mayor, >> uh,

[2:38:54] we have questions or you want to make a motion?

[2:38:55] » I want to make a motion. >> Can we see if anybody has questions

[2:38:58] first? >> Oh, okay.

[2:38:59] » Is that all right? >> Yeah. I thought we

[2:39:01] » Laura, did you have questions about this? Sorry,

[2:39:03] » I do not. And then Larry, did you have any other questions or No clarification?

[2:39:07] I >> I think it's a great idea, Matt.

[2:39:09] » Uh I do have questions. Um the specifically uh see here

[2:39:16] the last section of the sentence of the first point here specifically related to

[2:39:21] seasonal irrigation use. Does that need to be in the resolution or can we just

[2:39:25] notate that we have a uh water system issue?

[2:39:30] » Can you tell me what line item? >> Uh it's one one.

[2:39:33] » Okay. Thank you. There's a lot of stuff in here.

[2:39:36] » Yeah. >> Um we can scratch that uh

[2:39:44] identified concerning tendencies to related to the city's water system. We

[2:39:50] could scratch if that's the will of the council to scratch out specifically

[2:39:54] related to seasonal irrigation usage.

[2:39:59] » Yeah. Uh so

[2:40:05] sorry any any other questions? >> I do. Yes. Can we uh add somewhere in

[2:40:11] here uh making sure that we have staff available to respond during those peak

[2:40:16] usage times? Oh no, we have the uh never mind. We have the the system to be able

[2:40:20] to 24/7. Y

[2:40:24] » um when you're saying education, what what

[2:40:27] [clears throat] type of education are are we planning?

[2:40:30] » We'll be looking at all sorts of types of education, whether it's uh on the

[2:40:34] back of the water bill, individual meter uh individual flyers that go out to all

[2:40:39] of the residents or property owners uh in the city of Rather. uh website

[2:40:45] information, uh our news notices, and we putting

[2:40:49] together every single form of notification that we can do because not

[2:40:53] everybody uses the same thing. Uh the difficulty, I'll be blunt and honest,

[2:40:58] usually when a letter from the city of Rather comes to your doorstep, it gets

[2:41:02] put into the waistband. But we got to try everything we can. And if that means

[2:41:08] and includes that we find that it'd be essential to even do like a news article

[2:41:12] with quarterly press, we could do that too. I'm not limiting the way education

[2:41:19] is done. We will look at all areas of education. Okay.

[2:41:22] » Can we ensure to educate people how to submit their water pressure issues

[2:41:27] officially with the city? >> Sure.

[2:41:32] You know, too, Leon, I think word of mouth will help too when you start

[2:41:36] throwing stuff out there like the where we're going to do odd days.

[2:41:40] » I already saw on Facebook that uh that we're doing it even though we haven't

[2:41:43] done anything. >> Of course. Yeah. So, people will talk

[2:41:46] and people that don't necessarily Yeah. look at stuff will hear about it. So, uh

[2:41:52] » what was the request to add? >> Um education on how to submit an issue

[2:41:58] with your water pressures. >> Okay. I'll put uh we'll throw in a new

[2:42:03] 10 and push 10 all the way down. Um education

[2:42:13] I can do [clears throat]

[2:42:17] » making a mental note.

[2:42:22] » Is that everything you have? Yes, >> Ken. So, I have one thing. I don't know

[2:42:26] if it's possible, but in in case of a fire either outside the city where

[2:42:30] they're they're drawing water from a hydrant, is it possible to take a water

[2:42:35] reading at that time? >> Uh, not on the fire hydrant. We have

[2:42:40] » not not on the like the further most point

[2:42:43] like if they're drawing water, let's say from Dashco,

[2:42:47] » can we get a water reading at Brookshire?

[2:42:49] » Uh, we don't have any infrastructure out there, but we could pull it off of our

[2:42:53] wells. which fairly part of the part of the

[2:42:57] problem that I I have with that is JUB was pretty specific that no additional

[2:43:01] measurements at this point are going to change the hydraulic setting. So to

[2:43:04] » we can do water testing which is part of this resolution that we continue

[2:43:08] monitoring and water pressure readings. >> Okay.

[2:43:11] » So we can do water pressure readings wherever we can. The difference is in

[2:43:15] Canon Deir's scenario is that if they're pulling water pressure water out of a

[2:43:21] fire hydrant, if we don't have the pressure log already hooked to a fire

[2:43:25] hydrant on the other side of town, we're not going to measure that, right? We'd

[2:43:30] have to know in advance that they were going to pull do that. Now, in a fire

[2:43:34] situation, we wouldn't know any advance. And a lot of those fires happen, you

[2:43:38] know, in the middle of the night. However, if they're doing a fire hydrant

[2:43:42] testing and >> what I'm saying is if we have something

[2:43:45] that happens during the day >> and they're they're pulling water from a

[2:43:49] hydrant, can we go do a test on the other side of town to see what the

[2:43:54] pressure is at the pump? >> We could conceivably do that, but like I

[2:43:58] said, if we knew, you know, even if it was after the fact, like we had a house

[2:44:02] catch fire and two houses next door, you know, did it. If I knew what time that

[2:44:06] was, I could look at our scan and I could see it over four different

[2:44:09] locations areas and the reservoir as well.

[2:44:13] » All right, >> that's good to know.

[2:44:16] » And I and I appreciate we're making every concerted effort that we can as a

[2:44:22] municipality to help resolve problems and and work on it. We're doing all we

[2:44:28] can. We're working on it and it'll get there. So,

[2:44:32] uh, now Larry, would you like to make a motion?

[2:44:36] » Can I throw Can I throw something out real quick?

[2:44:39] » Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead.

[2:44:40] » So, I'm trying to help ease the idea of a

[2:44:45] motion to capture everything that's gone in here. So, if there was a motion that

[2:44:49] approved the resolution striking specifically related to seasonal

[2:44:55] irrigation out of section one and adding a new section on education on submitting

[2:45:02] requests for water pressure testing. >> Here you go, Matt. It's your it's your

[2:45:08] uh [laughter] motion.

[2:45:11] » You make your motion. I'll second it. >> Mr. Mayor,

[2:45:14] » uh go ahead. I make a motion uh that we first time for everything, right?

[2:45:23] » Okay. I've >> Can you can Oh, helps if I show you the

[2:45:28] thing. >> Oh, you got it. Uh no, it's not an

[2:45:31] ordinance. Next page on the back of it. Nope. On

[2:45:36] the back of that page. There you go.

[2:45:41] I move to approve and adopt the resolution for uh acknowledging

[2:45:46] preliminary water concerns and directing staff striking

[2:45:50] the water irrigation issue and adding the

[2:45:57] new number 10.

[2:46:01] Educating for submitting requests for water

[2:46:05] pressure testing, >> which is educating and submitting

[2:46:07] requests for water submission. Water pressure submission

[2:46:10] » as Leon said. >> As Leon said,

[2:46:13] » Lauren, did you Sorry. Did you Did you get that?

[2:46:16] » Are are you okay? >> You got it. You got it. Thank you. And

[2:46:18] Larry seconded. Um, any further discussion?

[2:46:24] I'm >> good. All right, Lauren, you can take

[2:46:26] the role. >> Matt, sir. Yes. Mayor

[2:46:32] » Sanders. >> Yes.

[2:46:33] » Laura Fuller. >> Yes.

[2:46:35] » Owens. >> Yes.

[2:46:39] » Right. Motion passes. >> Uh moving on to 8B. This is an action

[2:46:43] item consideration of authorizing the mayor to execute contract amendment

[2:46:47] number two with Jub Engineers Incorporated for the water system master

[2:46:52] plan update. >> Mr. Mayor, um I'll do my best to try to

[2:46:56] articulate what my mineral says and all her few words. Um we had asked JB um or

[2:47:05] city council had asked for JB to attend tonight's city meeting and they had some

[2:47:11] concerns. One, scope creep uh the fact that it's outside of their uh existing

[2:47:17] scope of work. Therefore, it would be need to be complemented by, you know, a

[2:47:22] supplementary agreement such as what is in your packet. The next was just um not

[2:47:29] knowing necessarily what the nature or uh the preciseness of the questions were

[2:47:37] um that city council may have um because they could come from all different

[2:47:41] angles. Therefore, the preparation that they would need to do would need to be

[2:47:46] extensive and it wouldn't and we're not talking about just one person in their

[2:47:51] organization, probably their whole team that's been working on our water master

[2:47:55] plan. Um, so that got me to thinking that one,

[2:48:01] if they have to step back and prepare, and then two, considerable added

[2:48:08] expense, to me, those are two negative things. And I definitely wanted to make

[2:48:13] sure I point those out to city council because now you're talking about

[2:48:18] strong likelihood of delay of deliverables [clears throat]

[2:48:21] um for that which obviously tonight seems to be paramount concern to get

[2:48:26] that done as quickly as possible um because the resources is now going to be

[2:48:30] diverted to go backwards um and try to prepare for a presentation that again

[2:48:36] they're not necessarily [clears throat] there yet because

[2:48:40] premature they are going to come back before city council. They'll come back

[2:48:43] before city council once they come up with all their findings um from their

[2:48:48] deliverable product. >> And sorry, Kevin, real real quick, I'm

[2:48:51] going to I'm going to ask you a pointed question. What is the likelihood that

[2:48:55] they would essentially just come back and say the water study is not done. We

[2:48:58] got to wait until it's done before we can give you any definitive answers.

[2:49:01] » That's a great point, Mr. Mayor. I'm actually hoping you deny this one. So,

[2:49:05] because I honestly think that's going to be

[2:49:08] » that's okay. [snorts] Council, any questions?

[2:49:14] » I was a question. [laughter] >> I have a question.

[2:49:18] » If we deny this, it's saying that they will still have they're expecting to

[2:49:25] come back in late September. >> September.

[2:49:27] » Okay. But if we pass this, it means they will come in before.

[2:49:33] But the but the but the completion of the master plan would be de or that

[2:49:38] hydraulic study could be delayed would likely be delayed is the way I

[2:49:42] » kind of feels like we'd ask them to come back and there'd be some questions

[2:49:46] they'd answer and some they plead the fifth because they can't

[2:49:51] provide exactness to the level or the type of question that may be asked.

[2:49:56] » So all that preparation one cost us a lot of money to do. it's I can't

[2:50:01] quantify what that scope of work is and two uh if they're diverting their time

[2:50:07] and you know their time allocation towards that and not the actual product

[2:50:13] then we're looking at significant delays in deliverables. So

[2:50:17] » and and yeah you you hit two nails on the head there the compensation that

[2:50:21] we're going to have to give them we have no idea what it's going to be.

[2:50:24] » But engineers aren't cheap number one. Number two, they want the questions a

[2:50:29] week in advance. So that delays it way beyond because by the time we can figure

[2:50:33] out the questions we want to do, we're going to be in the middle of September

[2:50:36] anyway. So why don't we just >> forgo this?

[2:50:39] » I think I think the mayor asked the best question and best answer I gave to him

[2:50:43] was I hope you deny it. >> Yeah. Yeah. [laughter]

[2:50:46] » Laura, go ahead. >> My question is I don't understand. Does

[2:50:49] this mean they're definitely coming back or that we have the option of

[2:50:52] » No, this so so >> before.

[2:50:55] Yes. So, they are definitely coming back >> when it's done.

[2:51:00] » This gives us an option of having them come back a little bit sooner, but as

[2:51:03] Kevin said, they're very likely just to tell us, "Listen, until it's done, we

[2:51:06] can't really give you any definitive answers."

[2:51:08] » That's about 6 weeks from now. >> Yeah.

[2:51:11] » Yeah. >> So, remember last meeting we said we

[2:51:13] want fire department here and all that. This is what this resulted from us

[2:51:18] asking them to come back to answer questions and

[2:51:22] » it's going to cost us a lot of money and I think it's moot. I think we should

[2:51:25] Anyway, >> is there a motion?

[2:51:29] » Mr. Mayor, >> Larry,

[2:51:31] » I make a motion that we deny the consideration of authorizing you to

[2:51:37] execute a contract amendment number two with JUB Engineers Incorporated for the

[2:51:42] water system master plan update. >> Is there a second? A second. And

[2:51:47] discussion. >> Right. Lauren, if you'll take the role,

[2:51:51] please. >> Sanders.

[2:51:52] » Yes. >> Matthew Sar. Yes.

[2:51:55] » Can >> Yes.

[2:51:56] » Or >> yes.

[2:51:58] » Thank you guys. Are we good to move on to the next item or do we need a quick

[2:52:02] recess? >> All right. Uh item 8 C. This is an

[2:52:09] action item consideration of adopting an ordinance adding new code to title 11

[2:52:14] adequate public facilities. Mr. Mayor and council, before you is

[2:52:19] title 11. We have had a number of workshops with both planning and zoning

[2:52:24] and with the city council in putting this together. This is the code that

[2:52:28] requires developers to study out the public facilities and the infrastructure

[2:52:35] that is needed prior to the development of any subdivision. Um they would have

[2:52:41] to check on traffic studies, water, uh sewer, um parks, all of our

[2:52:49] infrastructure projects and require them to produce reports so that they could

[2:52:54] then mitigate those if needed or show the council that we have adequate

[2:52:59] infrastructures available. Uh, I am limited on my ability to answer the

[2:53:05] questions, but I am here to entertain any questions that you may have.

[2:53:14] This is an ordinance motion, so it's the three parts.

[2:53:31] I am sure there are questions and discussion. Council,

[2:53:35] » oh, it's just so complex. >> Mr. Mayor, if I could add just a little

[2:53:38] bit to this. Um, >> sure. [clears throat]

[2:53:43] » To the council, don't expect perfection by what's in front of you as far as

[2:53:47] code. Um, this is our best effort to date. Um, this is not going to be the

[2:53:52] first or the last code that you ever amend. Every time we amend a code, we

[2:53:56] try to make things better um with doing that from a learning curve type

[2:54:01] perspective. So, [snorts] I appreciate that you might want to bet

[2:54:05] through a lot of this. We've gone through it as staff level. Uh but again,

[2:54:09] don't per don't expect perfection. Expect this especially being relatively

[2:54:14] new to constantly be, you know, upgraded as we start going through things and,

[2:54:19] you know, running this through the basically running it through the dollar.

[2:54:23] So >> the big difference is it adopts

[2:54:27] something that we don't have. >> It's definitely a step in the right

[2:54:31] direction. Is absolutely right about that.

[2:54:34] » So that that's a good point, but this wouldn't be beneficial to table till

[2:54:39] Emily's here to answer questions or do you think we should?

[2:54:41] » We could just asked to have it on this agenda because we've [laughter] been

[2:54:46] kicking this can down the road quite a bit. Emily's Emily's the one that

[2:54:50] interviewed us to get our input on that and she compiled our answers and put

[2:54:54] this together. >> Okay. And we also did a workshop with

[2:54:58] council in December. That was the was the big push to get this done. And these

[2:55:06] all of these came from council, mayor and council's comments at that

[2:55:12] time um to push forward on this piece of uh code.

[2:55:19] And as staff uh we think it's important that we adopt this code so that we can

[2:55:24] start pushing on the developers to provide adequate studies and act

[2:55:30] adequate uh reassurances to the council and to the public that the

[2:55:36] infrastructure in the city is not going to be harmed or detrimented by

[2:55:42] additional subdivisions getting added to the city.

[2:55:49] Uh, [clears throat] so Kevin, I think this is a question to

[2:55:53] you. Um, you know, I'm looking at 1115 mitigation me measures,

[2:56:01] specifically municipal water, and it mentions the water master plan here.

[2:56:07] Um, I can't help but wonder if we should have some sort of a

[2:56:13] bookmark on how old that master plan can be um, prior to it being applicable

[2:56:19] anymore. So, I guess for example, we're we're currently in the process of

[2:56:25] completing a water master plan. Um, how often are we required by law to have

[2:56:32] that done or are we? >> Good standard of care as far as practice

[2:56:38] on updating the master plan. So, we try to turn those over every 5 years.

[2:56:43] » Okay. And have we had a water master plan completed in the last 5 years?

[2:56:47] » Well, you know that answer. No, >> I do. But

[2:56:50] » you know that answer, we haven't. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So,

[2:56:56] » is there is there a legal requirement? I know you said that's kind of a best

[2:56:59] practice, but there's no legal requirement to have a master plan.

[2:57:02] » There is no legal requirement unless the city council adopts a code that that

[2:57:07] puts that legal standard on us. Now, in things like comprehensive plan, it is

[2:57:14] required by state law to be reviewed every five years. It doesn't mean that

[2:57:18] it has to change every five years. So, if the council wanted to adopt something

[2:57:23] like that in a future code amendment, not necessarily in this one because we

[2:57:27] have plenty of time, the water studies getting turned over to us in a month or

[2:57:31] so, uh, but if the council wants to adopt that water master plans, sewer

[2:57:37] master plans, traffic master plans, uh, park master plans, uh, have to be

[2:57:44] reviewed every five years, then you could do that

[2:57:49] in a separate piece the code and uh we could have a code that says that and

[2:57:54] then we could say okay every five years we come to the council and say we have

[2:58:00] reviewed it we think it's adequate or we think we need to change or council can

[2:58:04] tell us that we need to change it and we can do that but it creates a trigger

[2:58:08] point for us for a five-year period to look at those things

[2:58:13] but it wouldn't have to be part of this code

[2:58:17] » but if the council wanted to they could add

[2:58:21] um and I'm I'm looking at the second bullet under uh

[2:58:26] sorry 1115A municipal water the second bullet um at the end there or if

[2:58:32] required by the water master plan they could add verbiage which has been

[2:58:36] completed in the last five years

[2:58:41] and and that would create a requirement basically from a city perspective that

[2:58:45] the water master plan would need to have been updated in the last five years for

[2:58:48] this. Mayor, I really like what Leon had to say as far as at least reviewing it

[2:58:53] uh to make sure that it's let's say hear me out. Let's say we have absolutely no

[2:58:58] growth whatsoever in the city rather than zero flatline. Maybe we drop off.

[2:59:04] Are you going to want to spend the money to go through a water master plan update

[2:59:07] considering that that is the trend? Probably not. It's probably not a good

[2:59:11] use of financial resources. However, with what Leon suggested is at least

[2:59:16] we're going to go back and make sure we check the boxes on reviewing that type

[2:59:20] of information and have that conversation at that time, but it's not

[2:59:25] a shall occur but type of thing. >> Well, we could we could that that it has

[2:59:32] been reviewed and approved by the city council

[2:59:36] » every five years. >> I I think I'd be fine with

[2:59:40] » Would that cover both of your requirements there? Number one, it it

[2:59:44] creates a an expectation that it would be done at least reviewed every 5 years.

[2:59:48] » Yeah. I I think that's identical to what Leon just said.

[2:59:51] » Okay. >> Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[2:59:54] » Yeah. And I would I would need to make sure that the legal mumbo jumbo on that

[2:59:58] is accurate. So, we [laughter] get to have a motion

[3:00:02] » to add that and we could bring it back >> so that we have it for you. I'd rather

[3:00:07] make sure that we have it correctly worded to meet all legal requirements

[3:00:12] because as I've seen over the years, you change one thing, you've got to amend or

[3:00:18] change other things to match. >> Yeah.

[3:00:20] » And if there's something in our code that says differently, we don't want to

[3:00:24] have conflicting >> codes. So, should we adopt it as written

[3:00:27] right now? >> If you want to adopt it as written and

[3:00:30] we can propose a new amendment, that's fine. I either way is fine. where we

[3:00:34] could table it and bring it back at the next meeting uh with possible amendments

[3:00:39] in the council suggesting tonight. >> The next meeting is going to be a

[3:00:43] marathon again. I think >> next meeting is the budget hearing.

[3:00:47] » Lori, you have questions? >> Yeah, Mr. there. I I did look at this uh

[3:00:52] title and there were a few things that stood out to me that I felt like I

[3:00:59] wanted to make some recommendations about for about closing any potential

[3:01:04] loopholes that might be there. I don't have that information with me right now.

[3:01:08] Um but I at the same time I think it's important to pass it, but I definitely

[3:01:14] want the option of revisiting it soon. Well, I mean the council has that option

[3:01:19] at any time. >> We can always make amendments. Yeah.

[3:01:22] » That's the wonderful thing about legislation. You make the rules and we

[3:01:26] work on fine-tuning those rules. As Kevin mentioned before,

[3:01:32] » my my recommend and you know, I think I already said this, but my recommendation

[3:01:36] would be to add to that section the water master plan which has been

[3:01:40] reviewed and um approved by city council in the last five years.

[3:01:45] » Okay. [clears throat] But mayor, would you want to do that in

[3:01:48] the sewer master plan, in the traffic master plan? And that that's my point in

[3:01:54] saying take it to Emily. Make sure you got things right because you don't want

[3:01:57] to say >> we have a higher bar on the water master

[3:02:00] plan but a lower bar on everything else. >> Yeah. And I mean being completely

[3:02:04] honest, part of the problem that we have is that, you know, our water master plan

[3:02:08] has not kept up with the growth of the city, right? So when when was it

[3:02:12] actually completed? I don't remember off the top of my head.

[3:02:14] » Just a few months ago. No, [laughter] >> you wish.

[3:02:19] » That was our water sewer study. I was I was thinking of

[3:02:26] » so really kind of right at this peak of the

[3:02:29] » where we're starting to go up, right? >> Yeah.

[3:02:32] 2008. >> Yeah, I think it predates Kevin

[3:02:37] » or so. >> I started in 2008

[3:02:40] later. >> Correct.

[3:02:43] » Well, I'm not making the motion. So that is up to but

[3:02:48] » we can I think we can review that later and add it to it. You know like Leon

[3:02:52] said we're going to have to change a lot of the wording.

[3:02:56] I I was I was just saying the one my suggestion was your suggestion

[3:03:00] » um to add to um 1115

[3:03:06] a the second bullet um or if required by the water master plan which was which

[3:03:13] has been reviewed and approved by the council in the last 5 years

[3:03:18] » that was 1115 >> in the second a in the second board.

[3:03:23] » Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question? >> Sure.

[3:03:28] » Let's just say we didn't have it done. What would that do to this ordinance?

[3:03:36] Does that mean that they don't have to do water mitigations because we haven't

[3:03:40] reviewed and approved a master plan? That's again I would rather legal take a

[3:03:47] look at this and see what the unintended consequences of that statement is

[3:03:51] » before we throw it on as a quick amendment to

[3:03:57] this. Because my problem is if you say well we haven't reviewed and adopted it.

[3:04:02] Does that in in in [snorts] light of that does that mean well

[3:04:07] because you have it I don't have to complete this

[3:04:11] » and the unintended consequences and the other part mayor that I'm struggling

[3:04:16] with is the review and approve process. >> I'm not sure council is in the approval

[3:04:23] status of that rather the acceptance of those master plans. it could be yeah

[3:04:29] reviewed and accepted >> and and again you know

[3:04:32] » that's something that legally can get cleared up. It's kind of an important

[3:04:37] word. So >> yeah and the and the council's decision

[3:04:39] is adopt it tonight so that we have something

[3:04:43] » um and then potentially bring it back at the next meeting or or a future meeting

[3:04:48] right to make further modifications. [clears throat]

[3:04:50] » Yeah. Well and and quite honestly mayor you're talking about a fiveyear window.

[3:04:54] I'm not trying to push kick the can down five years, but anytime between now and

[3:04:59] five years, we could put that in there and we'd still be compliant with your

[3:05:03] suggestion. >> Yeah. And I and I don't know what the

[3:05:05] immediate ramifications of that would be. And I I agree with you that, you

[3:05:09] know, we should um we should have the city attorney take a look at it,

[3:05:14] » you know, but I >> can we approve this with a commitment to

[3:05:19] have a workshop um and make amendments to it within the next

[3:05:25] month. >> Well, this is an ordinance, not

[3:05:29] something else. So, basically, if you pass an ordinance, it goes into effect

[3:05:32] as soon as it's published. >> The other idea is just

[3:05:37] » as if you want to give a direction to staff to work on possible amendments

[3:05:43] entailing X, Y, and Z. I'd like to get that from all of you before we schedule

[3:05:49] something. And then it depending on workloads because right now I haven't

[3:05:54] done anything but water pressure stuff for three days not even working on my

[3:05:59] city hall project. So workloads is important in scheduling that time. So

[3:06:05] setting a time certain doesn't take into consideration what's on people's plates.

[3:06:10] making a request for those, drafting them up, preparing them for a workshop,

[3:06:15] may take two weeks, may take a month, but we can do that at the direction of

[3:06:20] council. And so we need your commitment to get what you would like to do so we

[3:06:25] can start crafting. That would be more on you guys to how long it takes you

[3:06:30] guys to put that together. setting us up with a one month or a six week time

[3:06:35] frame puts us behind the eightball if you guys don't get it to us until four

[3:06:40] weeks out. Do you see what I'm saying? So, it'd be better to adopt the

[3:06:44] ordinance as is and work with staff on corrections and edits and getting

[3:06:49] workshops together, but not necessarily tying to this ordinance because if we

[3:06:54] don't do it in six weeks, the ordinance still goes through.

[3:06:58] » Yeah. So it it doesn't need to be part of the

[3:07:01] motion. The motion would solely be for the ordinance itself

[3:07:04] » just to approve as is and then >> Okay.

[3:07:08] » Yes. M >> um I I have one question. I have I have

[3:07:12] a whole bunch of questions that I I sent over to Emily and she in part answered

[3:07:15] some of them. But um if the the simulated hydraulic model is

[3:07:21] unavailable, then traditional hydraulic modeling may be used. It is unavailable

[3:07:26] as in I it's it's broken, it's down, I'm in the field and it's not available for

[3:07:32] me right now. I lost my password. What is unavailable?

[3:07:37] » So, I'm going to ask you in a couple different ways. One, we're implementing

[3:07:41] a fee. It's a passalong fee for a developer to pay for those individual

[3:07:47] type water system analysis. So, that's part of the fee structure

[3:07:53] that we're implementing. So if Chris is out in the field or if I'm out in the

[3:07:57] field, it's not a oneman show type of thing. We would hand it off to a

[3:08:01] consultant, which would be a company. Um beating down means maybe there's a cyber

[3:08:08] attack. Computers are obsolete. AI is, you know, I don't know. Um but that's

[3:08:15] kind of what I anticipate that meeting. Um

[3:08:24] You have more questions? I >> They're not relevant tonight.

[3:08:28] » Okay. >> I just wanted to ask you what was your

[3:08:31] concern about that that it would be misused or

[3:08:36] » Yeah, potentially misused um if it's easier to do one than the other. We can

[3:08:40] utilize the unavailable aspect of things >> if one is more complimentary to a

[3:08:44] project than the other. >> I I would much rather not do hand

[3:08:48] calculations. I I went to college a long time ago and

[3:08:53] I'd have to >> Well, would it open it up to

[3:08:57] um ability to use a another model versus hand calculations?

[3:09:03] » No, I mean I could certainly do it. >> And would that be that would be you that

[3:09:07] that's doing it? >> Uh you would have to be someone who's

[3:09:11] licensed as a professional engineer. Yes. It wouldn't necessarily have to be

[3:09:14] me. So, so again, if that engineer chose a

[3:09:18] more complimentary model to use, they would have that option based on the way

[3:09:22] it's worded. Now, >> if I'm understanding your question,

[3:09:26] » more limited uh because of the amount of

[3:09:30] parameters that you could set with the actual computer simulated model.

[3:09:34] » I don't know. AI is cracking stuff out pretty quick these days. I don't know

[3:09:37] that I wouldn't be able to develop a model in AI, even as a layman at this

[3:09:41] point. Are are you employ the hackers? >> No, but I'm not I'm not an engineer

[3:09:48] working for a company whose job it is to come up with the least common

[3:09:51] denominator, if we will, since we're talking mathematics here.

[3:09:54] » Are are you implying like having your house appraised and tell the appraiser,

[3:09:57] I need it at 400,000 and it's only worth 350. Are you implying that that that

[3:10:02] could happen? >> No, I don't I didn't hear.

[3:10:04] » That isn't what you meant. That could be >> We We don't do We don't do things

[3:10:10] subjectively. No, no, no. I'm just saying I thought that might have been

[3:10:13] question mark. So, okay. >> No, not a figures lie liars figure type

[3:10:18] thing. No, not that at all. >> Oh, I got my figure all the time.

[3:10:27] » Uh, hold on. Uh, any other questions? >> No.

[3:10:32] » Ken. Laura. All right. Larry, you want to make a motion?

[3:10:36] » Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. I make a motion that the

[3:10:42] um consideration of adopting an ordinance

[3:10:46] adding new code to title 11 adequate public facilities be placed on its first

[3:10:51] reading by title only under suspension of the rules and to wave its second and

[3:10:56] third readings. >> Is there a second?

[3:11:00] » Second. >> 10 seconds. Loran, uh sorry, any further

[3:11:04] discussion? Lor, if you can take the role.

[3:11:08] » Larry Sanders, >> yes.

[3:11:09] » Ken, >> yes.

[3:11:11] » Matt, >> yes.

[3:11:13] » Yes. Right. >> Uh, an ordinance of the city of Ratham,

[3:11:16] Coupney County, a municipal corporation of the state of Idaho, adopting the new

[3:11:20] title 11 adequate public facilities of the Ratham City Code as follows.

[3:11:25] Providing Ratham City Code section 11-1-1 for purpose of authority.

[3:11:30] Providing Ratham City Code section 11-1-3

[3:11:34] for applicability. Providing Ratham City Code section 11-1-3

[3:11:40] for facilities covered include water, sewer, storm water, transportation,

[3:11:45] parks, and green/open space and emergency services. Providing Ratham

[3:11:50] City Code section 11-1-4 for standards of adequacy for each

[3:11:55] facility. providing Ratham City Code section 11-1-5

[3:12:00] for mitigation measure uh measures providing Ram City Code section 11-1-6

[3:12:06] for enforcement providing that the remaining existing sections of the

[3:12:09] Rather municipal code shall remain valid and in effect providing for severability

[3:12:15] providing for repeal of conflicting provisions and providing for the

[3:12:19] ordinance to be in full force in effect from and after its passage approval and

[3:12:24] publications according to law. >> Mr. Mayor,

[3:12:28] » Larry, >> I make a motion [clears throat] to adopt

[3:12:31] the ordinance adding the new code to title 11 adequate public facilities.

[3:12:37] Is >> there a second?

[3:12:38] » Any discussion? >> No. Gran, you can take the role.

[3:12:42] » Mayor Sanders, >> yes.

[3:12:44] » Owens, >> yes.

[3:12:45] » Ner, >> yes.

[3:12:46] » Laura, >> yes.

[3:12:49] » Council, >> yes.

[3:12:52] » Mr. Mayor >> Larry.

[3:12:54] » I make a motion to approve the publication of the

[3:12:58] ordinance adopting new code to title 11 adequate public facilities by summary

[3:13:04] only and incorporate the title of the ordinance into the body of the summary.

[3:13:10] » Motion made. Is there a second? >> Ken seconds. Any further discussion?

[3:13:15] » There is not. Lauren, >> Sanders,

[3:13:18] » yes. >> Ken Owens,

[3:13:19] » yes. >> And

[3:13:20] » yes. >> Yes. All right, motion passes.

[3:13:24] Ordinance passes, I should say. Thank you. Uh, moving on to item 8 E, action

[3:13:32] item, consideration of authorizing the mayor to execute a property donation and

[3:13:36] water infrastructure agreement. >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, I believe there's

[3:13:41] something else before that. >> Oh, did I miss one?

[3:13:43] » No. D. >> Oh, I am so sorry. Thank you. Thank you,

[3:13:47] Leon. Uh 8 D consideration of adopting an ordinance updating Ram city code

[3:13:52] section 2-1-2 to match current Idaho code. Mr. Mayor

[3:13:57] and council, before us on the on this is the amendment to the uh [snorts]

[3:14:02] qualifications of a planning and zoning member. So currently we have in our

[3:14:09] statute that each member of the planning and zoning commission shall have a

[3:14:13] qualified a qualified elector which is defined as somebody that is registered

[3:14:18] to vote of the county for a minimum of two years

[3:14:23] at the time of his or her appointment and during his or her service on the

[3:14:27] commission. Uh state code however is different.

[3:14:33] State code states, and we took this straight out of the state code, an

[3:14:37] appointed member of a commission must have resided in the county for at least

[3:14:41] two years prior to his or her appointment and must remain a resident

[3:14:46] of the county during his or her service on the commission. Um, and the reason

[3:14:52] why it's a resident of the county during his or her service is because there's a

[3:14:57] possibility of being within the area of impact and not in city limits. uh we do

[3:15:03] have a in that same section of code one exception for one commissioner that may

[3:15:10] reside within the area of city impact and that's why the county site is

[3:15:13] important. Um the arguments for and against this um one to be a resident of

[3:15:21] the city you don't have to vote in order to have a opinion on what you should

[3:15:27] city should do and how it should act and and react. Um you are a citizen

[3:15:33] regardless of whether or not you are a registered voter or not. Um, I don't

[3:15:38] know the history behind why the city selected the terminology the way it did

[3:15:45] or if the city if the state had a qualified elector clause at a

[3:15:53] past situation. All I know today is that the state does not require them to be a

[3:15:59] registered voter. So, the question before the council tonight is should we

[3:16:05] make this amendment or not? >> And it's I talked with uh Mayor Hodkins

[3:16:10] about this and he says it's up to the council. So, we throw it on the agenda

[3:16:14] to see what the council wants to do. >> And I I I would like to speak a little

[3:16:18] bit more to it as well. Um and and let the council know, you know, really what

[3:16:22] my intentions are in terms of this. So, so the reason that this is coming into

[3:16:26] play in the specific Idaho code, um, is that we have combined our planning and

[3:16:31] zoning and our impact fee advisory committees. Um, this specific

[3:16:35] requirement, my understanding is, comes from the, uh, impact fee advisory

[3:16:40] committee state code. Um, my intention is to split those committees. We can

[3:16:47] utilize the same members that are on those committees. Um, and I

[3:16:52] believe that by splitting those two, it essentially makes this ordinance

[3:16:57] modification, um, in my opinion that we that we don't

[3:17:02] need to do it. Um, you know, I I think the bigger question is, um, and and the

[3:17:07] intent as I read it in the code as it stands now is that it takes the burden

[3:17:13] of that residence requirement of two years in the county. It takes it from

[3:17:19] from someone at the city having to go backtrack and find out if that person's

[3:17:23] really been a resident or not for two years and puts it on the elections

[3:17:27] because in order to be registered for elections, you have to have been a reg a

[3:17:31] member of the county, right? And that's an easy way for us to go back and say,

[3:17:35] okay, you registered to vote two years ago, you've been here for two years,

[3:17:40] right? and and then you know whomever at the city which I mean obviously this

[3:17:45] raises a bigger question as well you know who is responsible for ensuring

[3:17:49] that you know in vetting the members of the committees to ensure that they meet

[3:17:53] all of the requirements um we have an instance where a member did not um and

[3:17:58] was appointed regardless. So that's why we're in the situation that we are now.

[3:18:03] I think the the most eloquent solution is split the two committees. um that

[3:18:07] that alleviates some of the requirement for planning and zoning and opens it up

[3:18:11] to be able to accept more people which I think um by having that little bit

[3:18:15] looser standard we'd get more applicants that are interested in being in planning

[3:18:20] and zoning and at the same time also establishes a separate which is required

[3:18:24] I believe to meet twice per year committee. Um there is nothing that says

[3:18:28] that we can't use both sets of people for both committees. It

[3:18:33] could be the same set of people on both committees.

[3:18:35] » Okay. Mr. Mayor, I I want to make sure that I heard one of the statements that

[3:18:39] you said clearly. Um this and so I may be conflicting here. The Idaho code that

[3:18:48] is referencing isn't the impact committee code to have a registered

[3:18:54] voter. This >> no

[3:18:56] » portion of the amendment matches the Idaho code for planning and zoning. It

[3:19:01] does not. the planning and zoning does not have to have by Idaho law the

[3:19:06] requirement to be a qualified elector. So this this change of this does not

[3:19:14] come into play for using a development impact fee committee member. This code

[3:19:20] section that we're using here is specifically related to planning and

[3:19:24] zoning. nothing to do about development impact fee because this qualification is

[3:19:31] not for development impact fees. This qualification is for planning and zoning

[3:19:37] and that's where we pulled the item code from

[3:19:40] » and and I could have completely misread that and that is 100% on me. But sorry

[3:19:45] Laura, go ahead. Mayor, I just wanted to to point out that I believe the purpose

[3:19:50] of having um the code as the qualified elector of a county for a minimum of two

[3:19:57] years was to confirm the Idaho state code requirement that the person be a

[3:20:04] resident for at least two years. You can you can prove residency far easier

[3:20:10] through land records than you can through

[3:20:14] » the problem is that uh you there's plenty of people that

[3:20:20] don't own land. >> That's true.

[3:20:22] » So that makes it a lot harder to prove, but it's very simple to look up there

[3:20:30] the um if a person's registered to vote. >> Here's my driver's license. And we have

[3:20:35] a contested county position that is someone that

[3:20:40] owns homes in two states and >> and

[3:20:43] » you know can't may or may not live in their house in Idaho.

[3:20:48] » For instance, again, lots of people rent. I

[3:20:51] » I'm not trying to argue either way. I was doing a clarification

[3:20:55] of >> where this is coming from. It's not

[3:20:58] coming from development impact fees. It's coming from planning and zoning. I

[3:21:02] don't. You guys are the ones in this. I'm not trying to make an argument.

[3:21:06] » I'm just doing clarification. >> I would hope if somebody wanted to get

[3:21:10] involved with city government, wanted to get involved with planning and zoning or

[3:21:16] whatever would actually want to vote, you know, and be that responsible. But I

[3:21:22] don't think it should be a requirement to be a registered voter just because of

[3:21:26] that. I think it's restrictive. Just have to be a resident of the county. But

[3:21:31] how do you approve that? >> Well, there's lots of ways to prove

[3:21:34] that, >> but this is the easiest way.

[3:21:36] » Yeah. >> And it and it takes that bird. It takes

[3:21:40] » because you can you can confirm the date that they're registered easily. Look it

[3:21:44] up and see that they have been a resident of the county for at least two

[3:21:48] years at the time of appointment. >> I I think there's other ways to to do

[3:21:54] it. >> There are, but they're going to be much

[3:21:56] more >> burdensome. Yeah. And then and then who

[3:21:58] are we who at the city are you placing that extra labor on?

[3:22:02] » I'm going to apply for the planning and zoning. Here's my driver's license. I've

[3:22:05] lived here for 8 years. >> That doesn't prove anything. Driver's

[3:22:08] license doesn't prove anything. I I know a number of people with driver's

[3:22:12] licenses in other states. >> They could go back to that state and

[3:22:16] say, "See, I've I've been here the whole time."

[3:22:18] » I I think we're just making a mountain out of a molehill that I don't know.

[3:22:22] Right.

[3:22:26] » Well, I mean the problem is that per our city code right now, we had a member of

[3:22:30] planning and zoning that was not qualified to be on planning and zoning

[3:22:34] and and that is what has necessitated us having this conversation.

[3:22:38] » How did that get overlooked? >> Uh who is resp I Leon who is responsible

[3:22:43] for making sure that all of the criteria >> and we did this all applications went to

[3:22:47] the mayor. The mayor reviewed them, interviewed the people, and made the

[3:22:52] selection, and the council approved it. There was no process of staff of

[3:22:56] reviewing whether or not they met qualifications.

[3:22:59] » Okay. But when I asked for a list of PNZ applications, I was given one and said

[3:23:03] that all the other ones didn't meet the criteria. So,

[3:23:06] » no, no, no, no, no. When you were asked, we said this is the only one that we

[3:23:11] have received within the 12-month period, and they are a non-resident, but

[3:23:17] and within the area of city impact. All other applications that we had did not

[3:23:23] select planning and zoning as an option. There were several that selected council

[3:23:29] member. >> Okay.

[3:23:30] » Or a parks and wreck but not planning and zoning.

[3:23:34] » Okay. I misunderstood. Yeah. >> Yeah. It was not because they were not

[3:23:38] qualified. >> Okay.

[3:23:40] » Mr. Mayor. Uh, I'd like to make a motion um denying the consideration of adopting

[3:23:48] an ordinance updating raft from city code section 212 to match current Idaho

[3:23:53] code. >> Uh, motion made. Is there a second?

[3:23:56] » I'll second that. >> Motion made and seconded. Further

[3:23:58] discussion? Uh, Laura, anything else? Larry, anything?

[3:24:04] » Is it that an ordinance? >> Yeah, but she's not passing it.

[3:24:08] » She's not passing it. Oh. Oh, she just Okay. Okay.

[3:24:13] » No. >> No. Anything else? Matt. Yes, sir. Ken.

[3:24:17] All right. Loren, if you'll take the role.

[3:24:20] » Fuller. >> I

[3:24:24] met Sir. >> Hi.

[3:24:26] » Ken Owens. >> No.

[3:24:31] » No. >> We have a tie vote. Mayor

[3:24:35] » I [snorts]

[3:24:39] I knew that was

[3:24:43] » you set me up, Larry. Is that what you're saying? [laughter]

[3:24:47] » For everybody's edification there.

[3:24:52] » I wanted you to get that auction. You haven't had that yet.

[3:24:56] » I I don't want to be. All right. All right. Moving on to And apologies. So, I

[3:25:02] am I'm going off the paper and I'm going off the um bookmarks in the PDF

[3:25:08] » that's posted on the website and they do not match. That's why I missed it and I

[3:25:12] apologize for that. >> Can I request a brief break?

[3:25:15] » We can break for 5 minutes. Absolutely. >> Thank you so much.

[3:25:19] » That's almost

[3:25:25] there. Good.

[3:25:31] one of those. >> Yeah, I'm going

[3:25:36] out. >> They don't They don't

[3:25:39] That's my That's That's my Normally. I've been checking to make

[3:25:44] sure before, but I didn't do it tonight. And

[3:25:47] » I think the meat recipe is going to go pretty fast.

[3:25:52] » I don't think so. >> I think we're we're going to set a

[3:25:56] record tonight. I've been having my Red Bull on my packed up and ready to go.

[3:26:00] » I better get get rid of some water.

[3:26:05] » Sounds like an excellent plan. >> Except for the get warm.

[3:26:08] » Yeah.

[3:26:14] Every time I get up, I think I'm like I can't

[3:26:22] [clears throat]

[3:26:25] » It does exchange.

[3:26:38] Oh, we were sitting

[3:26:45] right

[3:26:51] » that higher. >> Where's Stacy tonight?

[3:26:54] » Out of what? >> I showed up late. [laughter]

[3:26:58] » Where's Stacy tonight? >> I don't know.

[3:27:03] » Water, electricity, and everything else. Okay.

[3:27:18] » [laughter]

[3:27:20] » I I I want to get some point. >> It's expensive.

[3:27:27] » Yeah. Is >> I love

[3:27:32] » I'll take you >> if I

[3:27:36] need

[3:27:41] Well over 50,000 gallons. >> Yeah. Yes. And matter of fact, when I so

[3:27:45] showed it up there was >> maybe we'll go a little maybe.

[3:27:50] » Why are the HOAs being penalized through the city because

[3:27:56] Tan wishes his uh his report was earlier?

[3:28:01] » No way. I'm saying nobody. But you're in the same

[3:28:15] house,

[3:28:32] right?

[3:28:35] I'm just

[3:28:39] saying has targeted HOA knowing full well that

[3:28:46] they would never >> same and it's not targeted. So, so you

[3:28:51] if you look at now listen this if you use domestic water for your house yours

[3:28:58] for example in January and December that is for the water cleaning yourself

[3:29:05] dishes cooking your everything else you use less than 500

[3:29:13] how much of water

[3:29:17] for the Healthy. [clears throat] >> Oh, I agree with that. Okay. So

[3:29:23] [laughter] in the winter

[3:29:30] months

[3:29:36] between the two >> pressure

[3:29:44] [laughter]

[3:29:49] over

[3:29:52] » for the purpose of irrigation. >> So

[3:29:56] please abundance it should be on irrigation

[3:30:01] » not on you as a resident >> it's beyond the irrigation.

[3:30:06] » Okay. So basically when we got the 20,000 we basically said okay we're

[3:30:12] going to give you5 give you an extra 15 for your personal

[3:30:16] irrigation without having

[3:30:28] » was putting that up there but after 20,000. It's clearly

[3:30:36] » clearly the reason

[3:30:56] » back to us. >> We have more things.

[3:31:02] Stop talking so much, mayor. >> I'm sorry.

[3:31:06] » Can't help it.

[3:31:14] » I used to have a boss that would talk for like 20 minutes and then he'd go,

[3:31:17] "Do you have anything you want to say?"

[3:31:22] In all fairness, when he interviewed me, he apologized up front and said, "I like

[3:31:25] to hear the sound of my own voice." So, ever since then, I've been not I All

[3:31:31] right, moving on to item number 8E. Consideration of authorizing the mayor

[3:31:38] to execute a property donation and water infrastructure agreement.

[3:31:43] » Mr. Mayor, there are two items that are influenced

[3:31:48] by this one item. Not only this, but the next item on the agenda. So, as I am uh

[3:31:55] describing this, I want you to know that if if approved,

[3:32:01] item F automatically comes off the agenda. Okay? It's important to know

[3:32:07] that as we're taking these things into consideration.

[3:32:11] Um, the Meyer family has met with me since our last meeting and we have

[3:32:18] talked about the donation of the property of approximately

[3:32:25] 40,000 square ft, which is shy of 1 acre by 3,000 uh square ftish.

[3:32:34] Um on that land, Kevin is looking at a water tower and a water well as

[3:32:43] infrastructure that can be done on that land. Okay. Um as part of the donation,

[3:32:49] it does give us a piece of land that is higher in elevation.

[3:32:55] It does give us a a prime location for a water storage tank in comparison to say

[3:33:04] the west side of town. And why I mean that is because we know that we have had

[3:33:09] pressure issues on that side of town. It would put water closer to the pressure

[3:33:14] issues. um

[3:33:18] as conditions of that land donation that the city would build the water

[3:33:23] lines up the west side of the property and along the north side of the property

[3:33:29] which I believe I sent a memo out to the council that was that that would be

[3:33:34] approximately $330ome,000

[3:33:38] on the city to put that in. Um, if I'm remembering my numbers correctly, it was

[3:33:44] $100 per foot. Okay. Um, I want to point out that a water tower

[3:33:52] without a water line connecting to the water system serves no purpose in the

[3:33:56] city whatsoever. We are going to need to do that.

[3:34:02] If the development had a subdivision in play today, then we could say, "Well,

[3:34:08] you're building it because you're building a subdivision." We have no

[3:34:12] application for a subdivision. I don't know when it will come. It could come in

[3:34:18] 6 months. It could come in six years. It could come in 20 years. As you've seen,

[3:34:23] it could come in a month. Uh, but as you've seen, there's been land that's

[3:34:28] been annexed and zoned in the city of Rather that took forever to be. I'm not

[3:34:33] trying to use a crystal ball to say when that's going to come. And we need to act

[3:34:38] with what we have, not what might be. [snorts]

[3:34:42] Okay. So therefore, in this land donation, the other thing that uh is a

[3:34:48] compromise in this is water mitigation. We limited that to five years because

[3:34:54] anything that would be built within five years or subdivision submitted within

[3:34:58] five years, this would take care of any mitigation that they would need on

[3:35:03] water. Water mitigation would be extra lines and it would be water pressure

[3:35:10] tank uh sorry a water storage tank or

[3:35:15] pressure pumps in mitigating and that's my layman's idea of mitigation and

[3:35:22] looking to Kevin um so by donating this land and allowing us to build a water

[3:35:28] tower on this it would serve the entire city and not just a subdivision. and

[3:35:34] water mitigation would only have to serve the subdivision in which they're

[3:35:38] building. It would not have to mitigate for the entire city. Okay? So, that

[3:35:45] would handle the water mitigation issues, but again, it's limited to 5

[3:35:50] years. Uh the reason for that is things change in five years. There might be

[3:35:56] other things that need to be mitigated in that subdivision besides just water

[3:36:01] storage. uh if we have you know another 3 4,000

[3:36:08] homes built. Okay. So that's why there's a limitation of 5 years. The other is

[3:36:15] the green space requirement meaning that that this will

[3:36:20] be able to be used as part of the green space requirement. It's not going to

[3:36:24] fulfill the green space requirement. It would just be able to be counted for.

[3:36:30] That green space requirement is up to the city planner to determine whether or

[3:36:37] not it qualifies as green space. And the city planner has already told the family

[3:36:42] that if this was a water a donation for a water tower that it would meet the

[3:36:46] green space donation requirements. Okay. So, we're not promising something that

[3:36:51] wouldn't already be given. >> Sorry, Leon. Yes.

[3:36:55] » Quick quick question about that. Does the current water tower at Majestic does

[3:37:00] it is it does that qualify as green space?

[3:37:02] » Yeah, it does. >> Is there anything planted under it? Is

[3:37:05] there grass or anything >> or is it gravel?

[3:37:08] » It's gravel road directly under it, but it's surrounded by grass. Um, it meets

[3:37:13] the green space requirement because it's not being built on with houses.

[3:37:18] » Okay. >> It's also in the park.

[3:37:20] » The green space requirement is [laughter]

[3:37:23] the student observation. I I I'm and I and I ask because I'm

[3:37:30] trying to define green space in my head, >> right?

[3:37:32] » And that's why we allow the planner to define that in the subdivision plans

[3:37:36] that they give because you might also count sidewalks as green space

[3:37:40] requirement because it's going down the middle of the swell and the the buffer

[3:37:45] between the houses and the road. Um that's up for the um the planner to

[3:37:51] review the plans and make sure that they match. Um,

[3:37:56] so with this we do get property. We can build a water tower on here. We will

[3:38:02] need to have water lines to connected to the system as part of the requirements

[3:38:06] of building it. This is funded solely and it's important that this is funded

[3:38:12] solely with capitalization fees. The water lines, the water tower, a water

[3:38:19] well, all of it is by capitalization fees. So, it's the fees that we have

[3:38:23] charged to residential permits and commercial permits that connect to our

[3:38:28] water system since however long we've been collecting capitalization fees.

[3:38:35] That is why we have the money to do this. It's the same money that we used

[3:38:39] to build the okay well. We built that in 2018.

[3:38:44] 100% off of capitalization fees. No property tax increases, no water fee

[3:38:51] increases. So, it's important to establish that this is not the citizens

[3:38:55] in their water fees or taxes that's paying for this infrastructure. This is

[3:39:00] capitalization fees only. And we have $11 million of capitalization fees for

[3:39:08] water capital projects. This the water tower was estimated at

[3:39:14] about $7.5 million. The well that we built in 2018 was

[3:39:20] approximately 2 million. You know, inflation's increased. And then the

[3:39:25] water lines are about $330,000. All of it would fit within our 11

[3:39:30] million that we currently have and we're collecting every single day with

[3:39:34] permits. So, um,

[3:39:39] it is my recommendation to the council, and I very rarely make a recommendation

[3:39:44] on any item that comes into the council, um, that the council approves this

[3:39:51] donation and then we have this land to build this water tower to address some

[3:39:57] of the concerns that we have. Now, can it be built in other locations? Yes, it

[3:40:02] can. They're very limited that we have

[3:40:06] control over. Uh the mayor brought up the water tower at um Majestic Park. The

[3:40:14] current water lines for that only connects to the Corbin crossing

[3:40:18] subdivision. Therefore, you'd have to extend water lines into the main system

[3:40:22] as well. And that what do you give up in the park to tear down that water tower

[3:40:30] and rebuild a bigger water tower >> already on a 200 by 150 foot subplot,

[3:40:37] » right? But you can't, you know, do we want to add a well to that same

[3:40:42] location? My recommendation is no because you've

[3:40:46] got youth and people that's around that all the time and you have to have

[3:40:50] wellhead protection programs in place to protect that water source. That is a

[3:40:56] contaminate [clears throat] location and if you've got people around

[3:41:00] it all the time then you have issues with that. Okay. So that those are some

[3:41:08] of the things and that's why I'm recommending that we do this. Otherwise,

[3:41:11] we have to go on the search and find land that we have to buy at whatever

[3:41:17] price the owner wants to sell it for. We don't get the power to set the price

[3:41:23] even if we use eminent domain. And I know Mayor Hodkins, you are involved in

[3:41:27] an eminent domain case. We can force someone to sell us their property. Sell

[3:41:33] us. However, there are massive costs imposed on forcing someone to sell us a

[3:41:41] piece of land. Again, that's why I'm recommending that we the council

[3:41:46] approved this land donation. >> I I guess I don't understand that. You

[3:41:51] mentioned the tower or tank, whatever, and a well. Do you do you do you you

[3:41:59] have to dig a well to build the tank? Right. So they So could we could we use

[3:42:05] that property and just put a well on it and then put a tank

[3:42:09] » somewhere else later down >> if we found a better once the

[3:42:13] » structure come or our hydraulic modeling came in and said are you better off

[3:42:18] having a tank over in this area >> or something then we could do that then.

[3:42:22] » Okay. >> And then what was the point of accepting

[3:42:26] this and building the infrastructure? >> Well well we could put a well there.

[3:42:31] Well, it still need the water line to get

[3:42:33] » Well, I understand. I understand. I just It was just a question. I wasn't sure

[3:42:36] how the process worked. So, >> my hair just wanted to add I did ask

[3:42:42] Leon. I wanted to know um an estimated value of um the donated proposed donated

[3:42:52] land for that water storage tank or water tower. Um he said that his best

[3:43:00] guess, although he is not an appraiser, is between 100,000 and $150,000 for the

[3:43:07] value of that property. >> And that is today's value. That's not

[3:43:12] the future value of that property because again, we're looking at today's

[3:43:17] value. But if they were to turn that into homes, the Meer Meadows uh

[3:43:23] subdivision sold to a builder at $190,000 a lot.

[3:43:28] » A lot >> and four acres, you could fit four

[3:43:31] different lots onto that property. So if you wanted to look at it in a future

[3:43:36] value of that property, it would also be closer to $800,000

[3:43:42] to a million dollars depending upon when it was developed. So today's price, the

[3:43:48] reason why I have it low is because there's no water lines to it. There's no

[3:43:52] sewer lines to it. It's farmland that's being farmed. Uh there's no roads to it

[3:43:58] or anything of that matter. That's why my number is lower than the potential of

[3:44:02] putting houses on it. I just think that the um

[3:44:11] under this proposed agreement with the value of the um water main construction

[3:44:18] and infrastructure that the city's committing to build which is you said

[3:44:24] $336,000 plus whatever water mitigation is going

[3:44:31] to be provided. um

[3:44:35] » with additional pumps, etc. >> No, no, no, no.

[3:44:40] » What I'm saying is they still have to build all of their water lines for the

[3:44:44] entire subdivision. They still have to supply the water and what it needs to

[3:44:48] get there. We're not doing any of that. Okay. What I'm saying is the mitigation

[3:44:55] is if it falls lower than just putting in water lines. Okay. We're not

[3:45:02] committing to doing water lines for a subdivision.

[3:45:06] Okay? Regardless of what the mitigation comes out, they still have to do that.

[3:45:10] They still have to put that in. What we're saying here is that they won't

[3:45:16] have to add additional pumps for pressure because they're going to have

[3:45:21] a$1 to2 million water tank sitting on their property that will do that.

[3:45:28] Okay. that water tank would provide that

[3:45:32] additional pressure asurances in in that area.

[3:45:37] » It it really there be any other mitigation factors needed.

[3:45:42] » It just seems like a disproportionate trade.

[3:45:45] » Why? >> Because the city's providing the water,

[3:45:49] saving them money. The city's providing the additional line, saving them money.

[3:45:54] Um, you know, what is the city getting? >> The city gets a water storage tank. at a

[3:46:00] fraction of the cost >> potentially.

[3:46:03] » We get it potentially. Yes. >> But that's what we have to deal

[3:46:06] [clears throat] with today. We have issues that we just spent I don't know

[3:46:10] how many hours talking about and we have a potential solution in front of us with

[3:46:17] a potential budget to build it and need to seal the deal.

[3:46:24] » And if we don't get that, then we have to go look for property somewhere else.

[3:46:29] So, we might pay $800,000. >> Well, we already have property. Kevin

[3:46:33] stated that earlier. Majestic Park. There's already a water tower there. We

[3:46:37] can replace the tower that's there. >> But is it necessarily

[3:46:42] Mayor? I don't want to argue on that, but we need the storage and we can build

[3:46:49] this in this location and provide the storage

[3:46:52] that we need. This is part of the original ask from Kevin at the very

[3:46:57] beginning of all of this because we need to get the land and the appropriateness

[3:47:03] of the location of the water tower. My opinion, not as an expert, isn't next

[3:47:11] to a playground that is being with a whole bunch of kids and everything else.

[3:47:17] This is far bigger than a 50,000galon water tower. And you mentioned that that

[3:47:22] water tower only supplies that one subdivision. We would have to put in

[3:47:26] other lines. >> We'd have to put in lines as well.

[3:47:29] » Speculate what would that cost to connect that to the other place.

[3:47:34] » We haven't estimated that. >> So is that section of town is completely

[3:47:38] isolated from the rest of the city on the water?

[3:47:41] » That northeast corner of Meer Lancaster is. Yes.

[3:47:44] » Okay. We have all the valves closed on

[3:47:50] my road and l the one at Lancaster railway is closed as well.

[3:47:54] » Why why are those closed? What what's the advice?

[3:47:57] » Isolate um so that we maximize the pressure that we can do the booster

[3:48:01] pumps. If not we open up that and we ask the booster pumps to boost the pressure

[3:48:06] they would eventually fail. Um >> why why would they fail? Well, they

[3:48:11] » they just burn out enough. >> I mean, is that

[3:48:15] » cause more water pressure issues? >> I mean, is that what we're saying?

[3:48:20] » And then you come back to the original problem.

[3:48:22] » And if we did put a water tower there, is there any reason we couldn't just

[3:48:25] open those back up at that point and not have to rely on the booster?

[3:48:29] » Yeah, potentially. Sure. So again, utilizing land that we already

[3:48:33] own to solve a solution. The one the one thing, Mayor, um

[3:48:40] » keep keep in mind um for whatever this is worth,

[3:48:46] » building a water storage tank where there's no homes

[3:48:51] » would be much more favorable compared to building a water tank that is going to

[3:48:57] shadow majority of Majestic Park, especially

[3:49:02] shadow probably our best park feature. that we

[3:49:06] have being the splice pad. This thing is going to be huge. Um, you've seen the

[3:49:12] water storage tank that they built at Highway 95 on the west side of 95.

[3:49:18] » That's the size of a tank we're potentially talking about. This thing,

[3:49:23] yeah, it's going to be massive. Um, >> so the the question the question at hand

[3:49:28] though is which neighborhood is going to get it,

[3:49:31] » right? You're still putting it in the middle of another neighborhood. Mayor, I

[3:49:34] agree with you on that. But one thing I'll say it cuz Leon didn't commit to it

[3:49:40] because we don't know when they're going to develop it. But at least you know

[3:49:44] there's going to be a planned water storage tank and at least you know

[3:49:47] what's going to be. So it's going to be buyer beware

[3:49:51] that cards are all flipped over and if you still want to bet you have a losing

[3:49:56] hand then you're that's what you're doing. But good example.

[3:49:59] » This thing is going to be huge. >> Tossic.

[3:50:03] I all the houses that have been built there are right along the railroad

[3:50:06] tracks from me to you from the railroad track. I So they know what they're

[3:50:10] getting when they build their house. So >> you know there's a train.

[3:50:14] » Yeah. So they're going to know when they build their house there. I'm going to be

[3:50:17] right underneath the water tower >> or whatever. So

[3:50:20] » Okay, that's my only two cents worth as far as

[3:50:25] one side or the other. There's hydraulic things and amount of infrastructure to

[3:50:29] make sure we connect to our existing piping system. But I I think the the

[3:50:35] element of surprise on holy cow, we got this big tank that you know I I don't

[3:50:40] know. >> And if we have we ruled out our current

[3:50:43] site on Rather Mountain, replacing that smaller tank with a 2 million gallon

[3:50:47] tank up there. >> We need something in a different

[3:50:49] location. >> Mayor for 10 years Kevin's been telling

[3:50:51] me we need a tank on the south side. What what's on the mountain is not a

[3:50:56] little tank. That's a million gallons. It's big. It's a big daddy tank. Um

[3:51:01] » it's 2,000% bigger than the Majestic Park.

[3:51:05] » Yeah. >> Which is

[3:51:07] » And that's not exaggeration. Yes. >> So if you take that tank down and

[3:51:10] replace it with one that's almost the same size, it really wouldn't do.

[3:51:13] » Well, it's half the size, but yeah, I get what you're saying.

[3:51:16] » It's 20 times the size. >> No. No. If we if we're talking about

[3:51:19] replacing it with a 2 million gallon tank,

[3:51:21] » I know it'll be it'll be it'll Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. And and again, I you know, I

[3:51:27] want to make sure that we flesh out all of the options before we really talk

[3:51:32] about one. And I don't think, you know, I can't ignore also in the back of my

[3:51:35] head that I I've got this recommendation saying that we can't trust what we've

[3:51:41] got so far from a master plan, >> but we're basing this on the master

[3:51:46] plan. So, let's tear down or the hydraulic study.

[3:51:50] » Let's tear down our tower up there to build another one. And we're going to

[3:51:53] » Kevin has said regardless of what the master plan says,

[3:51:57] » Kevin has said since I started here in 2016, we need another storage tank. The

[3:52:03] location of it has changed. At one point, it was near the U

[3:52:10] where KC currently is. >> Okay,

[3:52:13] » that was one time. There were other times when it was over by the rather

[3:52:18] power plant >> since our recent issues with uh

[3:52:23] Brookshshire that has moved closer to Brookshshire to help service those

[3:52:27] needs. But it has always been a conversation. It has always been part of

[3:52:31] our capital fee structure as a capital improvement project for 10 years. So

[3:52:39] this having a water tower isn't based off of the water master plan that we're

[3:52:44] getting today. It has already been planned for and prepared for and

[3:52:49] collecting revenue for it since at least 2016 when I started. So yes, the water

[3:52:57] master plan will help us get what we need in design and height and everything

[3:53:04] else, but the need for that tower in Kevin's future planning has been there

[3:53:11] since 2016. >> Yeah.

[3:53:13] » That's why we have $1 million in the capital uh improvement.

[3:53:17] » Yeah. No, no one I don't think anybody up here is debating the need for a water

[3:53:21] tower. I I don't think that's it at all. I I think what's really a question is

[3:53:25] number one the placement of the water tower. Um you know I think that's that's

[3:53:30] the primary issue that I have and and that's why I mentioned that you know

[3:53:34] there are other several alternate sites that would be as good potentially. Um it

[3:53:41] is it is hard to say without a completed hydraulic study 100%. I can tell you

[3:53:46] that if you wanted to buy the school district property, it would be a $10

[3:53:49] million ask because the school district property has

[3:53:53] water and sewer lines on it. It's developable land and they want something

[3:53:58] comparable to build a >> school someplace [clears throat] else.

[3:54:04] » Yeah. So >> if you So what we have is what you've

[3:54:09] mentioned so far. We have the land that's on the Meyer property. We have

[3:54:14] talked about the the price tag of the school land which is higher than

[3:54:20] anything possibly >> more than the land at 150,000 more than

[3:54:25] the land uh price of doing 300,000 plus in water lines.

[3:54:31] » And then we have the majestic park area which I have my grandchild that plays at

[3:54:38] that park. Do I want them playing next to a million gallon water tank?

[3:54:44] » No, but you want to build houses around it.

[3:54:47] » So, you want to put other people's families at risk?

[3:54:49] » No. But other people's families have the option because they know it's going to

[3:54:55] be there. They get to make that choice. >> Well, we're putting in a new city park

[3:55:00] and you have the option to play over there.

[3:55:04] I mean, I I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying that there are

[3:55:07] options and I'm just laying out what those options are.

[3:55:10] » I feel that this is our best option. >> Mr. Mayor, may I speak?

[3:55:13] » Go ahead, Laura. >> I I wanted to speak about some of the

[3:55:17] concerns I had about it. >> Okay.

[3:55:19] » Um, [clears throat] one, as I feel that this proposed agreement is definitely

[3:55:26] favors the applicant far more than it favors the city that they're getting far

[3:55:31] more than we are. Um although I do understand the value of the the water

[3:55:37] power the land for that. Um but [clears throat]

[3:55:42] from just a financial perspective they're getting a much better deal. Uh

[3:55:47] the other thing is the green space uh requirement that they're wanting to say

[3:55:53] that that water tower acre should apply to green space. Um that's going to be a

[3:56:00] fence off fenced off area. the public can't get into that. The purpose of the

[3:56:05] green space is for the public to be able to enjoy it on some level. Um

[3:56:12] [clears throat] that so I have a problem with that. The other thing is there are

[3:56:16] other locations that I do think are still that we should look into. There's

[3:56:22] the um parcel to the south, the parcel to the west of that area that we're

[3:56:29] looking and the parcels to the north. Those are all potential areas that we

[3:56:34] could look at as well. >> So, the parcels to the north is owned by

[3:56:38] North Idaho College and is expected to be expanded in the future for

[3:56:42] educational purposes. >> So, that's not a viable location.

[3:56:46] » Okay. >> The other area is KEK. That is also a

[3:56:51] future expansion area for their program. >> The other area to the north of the

[3:56:57] property is the Lakeland School District's high school. No, I meant to

[3:57:02] the um to [clears throat] the west and the south.

[3:57:06] » It's unincorporated area owned by the Aristad family.

[3:57:10] » Yeah. And you had mentioned that we could possibly look into annexing just a

[3:57:16] acre of that land and then offering um >> if the property owner is willing to do

[3:57:22] that and >> maybe we should explore that. I have

[3:57:26] talked with that property owner and if he's going to donate the land, he wants

[3:57:31] the entire thing annexed, not a oneacre parcel.

[3:57:36] » Um, what about to the south? >> That is the Meyer families as well.

[3:57:40] » So, have we looked into that? >> Uh, yes, we have. And

[3:57:46] » they would like to have that annexation uh as part of the contingency of that

[3:57:52] land as well for the entire 80 acres. So that was part of the conversation that

[3:57:56] we had with the family uh when we started to develop this agreement

[3:58:01] » about the uh I mean we and we can play this game all night, right? I mean

[3:58:06] there's a lot of there's a lot of spots in that section of town. Um you know,

[3:58:10] one that um has been voiced as a concern in the past is the um north east corner

[3:58:16] of Meyer and Lancaster that it's going to be difficult for anybody to build

[3:58:20] there. Um, you know, there's also commercial land potentially on the

[3:58:25] southwest side of Meyer and Lancaster that, you know, we could potentially

[3:58:29] negotiate for an an acre of land out of that.

[3:58:34] » So, same family owned by the same people,

[3:58:36] » but but would it have the same infrastructure cost

[3:58:40] since it's essentially on the main? >> Not, but that's prime commercial

[3:58:43] property. You think about it being right next to a high school. Would you like to

[3:58:47] have a piece of commercial property next to about

[3:58:50] 800 to a,000 kids that would like to run and buy something for lunch.

[3:58:58] I mean, that's prime commercial property and the likelihood of buying that

[3:59:03] property at a price less than what we're getting for now is is unrealistic.

[3:59:08] » Yeah, I think they want to for the entirety of it a little over a million,

[3:59:11] right? I didn't look into that, but I can tell

[3:59:15] you commercial property, you're talking at well over $250,000 an acre.

[3:59:21] » Here, here's the here's how I see it. Okay, and I I appreciate you saying,

[3:59:26] well, the value to them is greater than the value to the city, [snorts] but

[3:59:31] you're looking at it in dollars. Okay, let me let me clarify that. Here's a

[3:59:37] family that's done a lot for this area for a long time. Okay, they're willing

[3:59:41] to give us a piece of property. Donate a piece of property. We don't have to pay

[3:59:45] for it. Okay, [snorts] they're going to donate it. That's got a value of way way

[3:59:51] underestimated if if they just want to annex in their or

[3:59:58] uh do their um reszone of their property and they're willing to do that for us.

[4:00:05] We need the property. We need the water tower. Everything's in place.

[4:00:10] I I don't look at it as if we don't do that, then we're going to have to go

[4:00:14] somewhere else and more than likely more than likely have to pay for a piece of

[4:00:19] property. Number one. Number two, how long is it going to take before we find

[4:00:24] another place? There goes our water tower another year or two years down the

[4:00:29] road. We can start building this water tower almost immediately.

[4:00:34] And I think it's a big value and a benefit to the city. And I think we

[4:00:39] should accept it. I Yeah, there's there's pros and cons either way, but

[4:00:45] darn I'll be darned if I can see something better right now.

[4:00:53] » Ken, >> I still have yet to see a con.

[4:00:58] » There you go. >> The answer to the water problem that

[4:01:00] we've been arguing for years. Well, I mean what we heard is maybe

[4:01:05] there there may be a better spot to put it, but

[4:01:09] » okay. It's it's on high ground >> and it's close to the problem.

[4:01:13] » It it's higher than Brookshshire.

[4:01:18] » I don't know. >> Which which again would impact cost,

[4:01:21] right? Because the higher you have to build that, the more expensive it's

[4:01:23] going to be. And so let me ask you the the funds that are being used, right?

[4:01:27] They're they're being paid for out of impact fees.

[4:01:29] » Capitalization >> capitalization fees. Thank you. Um what

[4:01:32] what other projects can that money be spent on

[4:01:36] » for that water capitalization fee? Only only water infrastructure items. Anytime

[4:01:40] we you know do a water man that's in our in our CIP, water tank, water wells. Um

[4:01:48] you can't correct deficiencies um with that type of thing. You can't go

[4:01:53] out and add more hydrants or anything on that nature. You're talking about a

[4:01:58] major improvement. Wait, isn't the water tower correcting a deficiency?

[4:02:03] » No, that's a major capital improvement that deficiencies like adding more fire

[4:02:09] hydrants. You know, couldn't add a couldn't add hydrants or

[4:02:13] » you couldn't even take a existing water line that's 16 in and move it to a 24in

[4:02:18] water line. That's an existing deficiency. The water

[4:02:23] tower is a capital project that was [snorts]

[4:02:27] that was identified and using the correct words

[4:02:32] when we made our capital fee structure. >> Yeah,

[4:02:35] » it was already identified before there were pressure issues. It was already

[4:02:40] identified before there was a lot of growth. It was already identified back

[4:02:44] in 2016 when the city of Rather was getting about 20 to 30 building permits

[4:02:50] a year. it was already identified at that particular point in time. That is

[4:02:55] part of planning for the future is to look at what we're going to need in 5 10

[4:03:01] 15 20 years out and then start reserving and saving for it. The city of Rather

[4:03:07] long before I got here has been a big proponent for saving for future

[4:03:13] purchases. And they've done it with city hall. They

[4:03:17] did it with the Okay. Well, they did they're doing it with this water tower.

[4:03:22] It's part of the planning structure. And the other thing, like Larry said, is we

[4:03:28] could pass on this. Okay. Do we know when we'd have an appropriate location

[4:03:35] for this that is going to satisfy not only the needs of the city, but the

[4:03:41] concerns of the citizenry. Okay. We have an opportunity to address a

[4:03:48] concern. We will if we sealed the deal on this

[4:03:53] today, the design of it won't happen until the water study is done in a

[4:03:58] month. We probably wouldn't break down on with

[4:04:03] ground on it until March at the very earliest because of weather at hoping

[4:04:09] that we get the snow this year. Okay. But the money is proposed in the budget.

[4:04:17] We have an opportunity today to buy land and start addressing a water pressure

[4:04:22] issue. The design of which will come in this fall and winter months to make sure

[4:04:29] that it meets the requirements of our water modeling and our pressure and our

[4:04:34] pressure issues. We could be building this starting in

[4:04:40] March and April and we could have it in place by fall of 2028.

[4:04:46] We pass on this and hem and ha about it. We're kicking that can down the road

[4:04:53] every month that we do that. And I don't have another solution that gets us to

[4:04:59] this end today. We have this opportunity now.

[4:05:05] And the value of it is more way more than the dollars. The value of it is for

[4:05:11] the citizens and what they are expecting out of us. That's the true value of this

[4:05:18] project. >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion.

[4:05:23] » Go ahead, Larry. like to make make a motion that we consider you authorizing

[4:05:29] considering the authorization of you to execute a property donation and water

[4:05:33] infrastructure agreement. >> Seconded.

[4:05:36] » All right. Made and seconded.

[4:05:40] » Any further uh Ken? Any further discussion? Laura,

[4:05:46] Larry?

[4:05:50] Okay. I I just have a hard time not seeing this as the city paying for the

[4:05:56] land one way or another. Um, you know, depending on which

[4:06:00] um, you know, which

[4:06:05] I mean, yeah, no matter how how you look at this, it it seems to me like we're

[4:06:10] giving a lot more than we're getting. >> You know, I think I think Laura is

[4:06:14] right. >> Um,

[4:06:18] you're right. I am because I have to be fiscally responsible with the citizens

[4:06:22] money >> and and the staff has always had the

[4:06:25] fiscal responsibility of the city's money.

[4:06:28] » But you're saying ignore the money. >> No, I'm not. I'm saying the value is in

[4:06:32] providing the water tower to the citizens. That's the value.

[4:06:36] » You utilizing a hydraulic model that isn't done and we're not even sure that

[4:06:40] that really is the optimal place to put it. Okay.

[4:06:44] » Let me [clears throat] ask a question. What if

[4:06:48] uh 6 months down the road we find a better piece of property?

[4:06:52] » Can we give that property back to them

[4:06:57] » and not >> we could work an agreement to do that

[4:07:00] and resell it to somebody else and we would still have responsibility of

[4:07:05] » the water lines, >> right? Or wait till they build their

[4:07:09] subdivision and sell it and it'd be worth the 800,000,

[4:07:13] » right? >> Or whatever. Okay. So, I mean, there's a

[4:07:16] negative way of looking at everything, but man, we've been pounding this for a

[4:07:20] half an hour and I and we had it last week. I just

[4:07:25] » may I I I think that I would like to see us fully explore

[4:07:30] other locations and I believe Kevin did bring up that there are other locations

[4:07:36] that they've are looking at and have deemed that could be acceptable.

[4:07:45] But are they available? >> That we don't know. We have to explore.

[4:07:49] We have to explore that. But we haven't yet.

[4:07:51] » How long is that going to take? >> That's unknown.

[4:07:54] » Okay. I [clears throat] I I think we have a very good gift here and I think

[4:07:59] we need to take advantage of this. >> You don't pay [clears throat] for gifts.

[4:08:05] » Matt, >> Leon, is there any way that we're able

[4:08:07] to delay a decision on this or does do we have to have a decision today? So

[4:08:13] here's the this the second item on the agenda has to be addressed today. This

[4:08:18] agreement has within it that if we approve it, we already have the

[4:08:22] signatures of the land owners on this that if we approve it, then the

[4:08:26] reconsideration and the takings analysis goes away

[4:08:31] plus the ability for them to sue the city. So if we table this and wait for

[4:08:37] two weeks till the next council meeting then what we have is that we do have to

[4:08:44] address the reconsideration and we do have to work on that.

[4:08:48] » Um so that is what we have in front of us

[4:08:52] » and and we can't table item F. >> You cannot

[4:08:56] » and if we do the reconsideration and we agree to it then we then the propertyy's

[4:09:02] off the table. >> Right. Am I correct?

[4:09:04] » It just means they get the reszone without any condition.

[4:09:08] » They don't get the we don't and we don't get the property,

[4:09:11] » right? And they don't get the everything [clears throat] else that they're

[4:09:15] getting with it. >> Well, sorry. What is the what is the

[4:09:18] value of the 200 by 200 foot? >> We haven't made um we're just we we

[4:09:27] understand what finished lots have been selling for in other areas recently. Um

[4:09:32] and Not cheap.

[4:09:34] » We're not buying. >> This is not a finished lot,

[4:09:38] » but it will certainly be in that area. >> Is it Is it Is the value of the land

[4:09:44] more than what it's going to cost us to put the pipe in?

[4:09:48] » Absolutely. It's right here. >> Yes.

[4:09:51] » Sorry. Yeah. The value of the land. >> Oh, again, mayor. Let me back up before

[4:09:55] I quickly answer. Yes. >> I'm not an appraiser.

[4:09:59] » Yeah. >> But I happen to buy a lot of right away.

[4:10:02] uh that type of thing. But uh yeah, I would certainly say it'd be worth it. Um

[4:10:09] I I think it'd be more than the water main extensions.

[4:10:13] So, >> and you're basing your judgment off of

[4:10:16] me that says I'm not an appraiser. I don't buy land. Kevin does.

[4:10:21] » And you're looking at a monetary value of the land. And then you your question

[4:10:24] was more than is the value of the land worth more than putting the pipe in? If

[4:10:29] we put the water tower where the >> the water

[4:10:34] » If we put the if we put it at Majestic Park, you said we're gonna have to run

[4:10:37] more line, right? >> Yeah.

[4:10:39] » Okay. So, there again, no matter where we go, we're going to have to run water

[4:10:43] line. Correct. >> Hear me out, Larry. My concern about

[4:10:47] Majestic Park is more about the element of surprise to an established

[4:10:52] neighborhood of an established park with this huge monstrosity of

[4:10:57] » Well, no, I'm I'm trying to correlate that.

[4:11:00] » That's my bigger concern. It's not an engineering or a technical concern.

[4:11:04] Yeah. Pops in. It seems to work. We could figure out a way to make water

[4:11:08] lines work. That type of thing. Um, yeah, there's expense to it, but

[4:11:14] to, you know, to put what Leon's and understand part of this is,

[4:11:21] I thought we had a a land use action that had kind of an opportunity in front

[4:11:25] of us to try to get something as part of what we were, you know, what was being

[4:11:30] requested with changing their zoning back. Um, we do it's

[4:11:36] quote unquote in this potential problem area. It just seemed to check a lot of

[4:11:42] boxes for what we're doing. And mayor, I understand it's not a perfect solution.

[4:11:47] Um, but man, it it ticks a lot of boxes. So,

[4:11:52] on what we're trying to do and uh we've got a pretty good track record

[4:11:57] on procuring these type of things. Um, we just built that roundabout at

[4:12:02] Lancaster Meyer and you know, we bought no rideway for that.

[4:12:06] Uh, we we acquired all that rideway back when Lancaster Road was a gravel road.

[4:12:12] Who knew it was going to be a two-lane multi-lane roundabout?

[4:12:17] I knew eventually it was going to be, so I got the rightway for it. In this case,

[4:12:22] I think yeah, we're making a pretty good judgment of what we're getting out of

[4:12:27] it. is I I have to agree with you. It's not a perfect solution, but my goodness,

[4:12:33] it is it is a prime opportunity right now to obtain something that might

[4:12:40] answer quite a few problems. Potentially answer quite a few problems.

[4:12:47] » Kevin, you said this ticks a lot of boxes. What boxes does it not tick in

[4:12:51] your head? I think the mayor's,

[4:12:55] you know, the one thing he's mentioned is just the water line uh or the

[4:12:59] location of where the water tank is in relationship to where our water lines

[4:13:03] are. That distance is probably if it was right next to our water lines and we had

[4:13:10] minimal amount of pipe to go to it, that would score higher than what this

[4:13:16] particular site would. those other sites would score a lot

[4:13:21] lower in the fact that we'd have to obtain that right away appraise it go

[4:13:27] after try to purchase it listen to that northeast corner where Copper Basin owns

[4:13:32] that property say no we're not selling it to you and we go okay would you use

[4:13:35] imminent domain and then we pay four or five times what the value of that

[4:13:39] property is because of legal reasons and just bid on the DO min roundabout uh

[4:13:45] years ago Um there's just quite a few unknowns and this one

[4:13:52] this one feels like a much a lot more known are out there.

[4:13:57] » And and just to be clear, sorry, just to be clear, um the the agreement under 1D

[4:14:03] does specifically dictate exactly what the city can use this land for. It is

[4:14:08] not an option to resell the land if we choose a better site later.

[4:14:11] » That's quite possibly true. Um I don't know that.

[4:14:16] approval. >> So, so sorry. Use the use of water

[4:14:19] facility site. The city may use the donation site for any municipal purpose

[4:14:23] it deems necessary, including but not limited to a water storage tank, well,

[4:14:28] pump station, treatment facilities, telemetry, access drives, security

[4:14:32] fencing, drainage, utilities, maintenance, repair, replacement,

[4:14:35] reconstruction, and related public utility improvements.

[4:14:40] and their current intent is to build the water tower or possibly well.

[4:14:45] » Unless we get the water plan next month and find out there's a better spot for

[4:14:48] it. >> I would doubt that that we would have a

[4:14:52] water plan that didn't say you can build it, but you have to build it either 12t

[4:14:57] higher or 12 feet lower. That's going to be the difference. It's not going to be

[4:15:01] the location. It's going to be the difference in the height of the design.

[4:15:06] Go ahead. I I I was going to ask, have we considered the land that's owned by

[4:15:11] the city of Wrath that's just south of the new city hall?

[4:15:16] » It's zoned commercial for the purpose of selling it to replenish our fundamental

[4:15:20] mountains. >> Well, perhaps we can

[4:15:24] » far more valuable. an acre of it or 200 by 200 site

[4:15:30] » would be about if you were to look at it the price of that would probably be more

[4:15:34] than lot the water line and the property itself.

[4:15:37] » Yeah, >> that is an extremely valuable piece of

[4:15:40] property >> for each property. Yeah.

[4:15:41] » Oh, what about the back side of the park?

[4:15:43] » Just an idea about

[4:15:48] » just just throwing out ideas. spitball and I don't have a good deal

[4:15:52] for that one, but you might you might be spot on on something or

[4:15:56] » I mean we were talking about >> cut cut down all those trees in the

[4:16:00] northeast corner of the new city park. We can throw a water tower up there.

[4:16:03] » We we can come up with a whole lot of ideas but there is a motion on the table

[4:16:07] I think. >> Are you okay?

[4:16:10] » I'm calling the vote.

[4:16:14] » Mary Sanders. >> Yes.

[4:16:16] » Ken Owens. >> Yes.

[4:16:18] » Laura Fuller. >> No. Matthew start.

[4:16:22] » Yes. >> All right. Motion passes.

[4:16:28] » Um that means >> item F is moved.

[4:16:33] » Item F. >> Item F can be removed.

[4:16:34] » Can be removed. Uh do we have to vote on that since it's a change to the

[4:16:40] » agreement says that it's null and void. >> I I just Okay. All right. Uh item G,

[4:16:46] action item, consideration of authorizing the mayor to execute the SRO

[4:16:49] agree. Dan, uh agreement with the [laughter]

[4:16:53] » Lakeland School District for the 202627 school year.

[4:16:58] » Oh, it should take 30 seconds. >> State your name and address, please.

[4:17:01] » Yeah. >> Uh so before you use the an updated

[4:17:05] contract, basically the only change is the amount. So officer Baker will be

[4:17:09] assigned as the SRO this year. So this is reflects his pay and benefits each

[4:17:14] month. So that's the only change in the contract. I've given it to the um acting

[4:17:18] superintendent Jake Massie. He's looked it over and feels very comfortable with

[4:17:22] it. We'll present it to them next Wednesday.

[4:17:25] » Will he be assigned to a school or will he bounce between schools or how does

[4:17:29] that work? >> Yeah. So the the specific ones that he

[4:17:33] starts out with is the alternative high school and then two elementary schools.

[4:17:37] um if they are not able to hire someone at the middle school, he will cover that

[4:17:41] as well. >> So, as far as the uh armed security

[4:17:44] guard, >> hopefully that's a good little bump for

[4:17:47] him if that's the case. >> Yeah. [laughter]

[4:17:50] » Is the high is is Hatcher still going to be at the high school?

[4:17:55] » Yes. Yep. From my understanding, he's still at the high school. So,

[4:17:57] » but and he's there full-time all the time.

[4:18:00] » Yes. >> During during school time? Okay.

[4:18:02] » Yep. >> Questions?

[4:18:06] Sorry, Matt. Question. >> Nope. Ken, question.

[4:18:10] » Is there a motion?

[4:18:20] » Uh, [laughter] Mr. Mayor. >> All right, Larry.

[4:18:22] » I'd like to make a motion to consider you authorize to execute the SRO

[4:18:28] agreement with the Lakeland School District for the 26 27 school year.

[4:18:33] » I second. All right. made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?

[4:18:40] » Lauren, you take the role. >> Did you second?

[4:18:44] » Yes, he did. Oh, Matt did. Sorry, Matt did. It was not Ken this time.

[4:18:50] » It's getting late. You guys are starting to sound the same. [laughter]

[4:18:54] » Just so we don't start looking the same, we're okay.

[4:18:59] » Larry Sanders. >> Yes.

[4:19:01] » Yes. >> Yes.

[4:19:04] Yes. All >> right. Uh, moving on to

[4:19:08] 8H, consideration of a resolution selecting Free Form as the furniture

[4:19:12] company to provide and install furniture for the new city hall project.

[4:19:17] » Mr. Mayor and Council, I included a memo on this and hopefully you've had a

[4:19:21] chance to read that, but uh basically we looked at three different companies. All

[4:19:25] the companies did uh uh have contract pricing through the state. of

[4:19:32] the furniture is under those contract pricings. Uh they all had good customer

[4:19:38] service as far as providing us with information and trying to be helpful. Um

[4:19:43] but when it came down to it, it was the delivery of the equipment, the furniture

[4:19:49] when we uh they do processes different than anybody else. They get it at their

[4:19:55] warehouse. They open open it before it's delivered. They assemble it to the much

[4:20:00] as they can to make it easy to go in and out of the building with it. Uh then

[4:20:04] they wrap it with blankets and uh shrink wrap and then they put it on a

[4:20:11] semi-trail so when they bring it to the city hall they'll be able to have it

[4:20:15] installed within a week's time frame. Uh the rest of the locations were looking

[4:20:20] at four, six or eight weeks um to provide the installation. The difference

[4:20:25] being is they would drop off the boxes at city hall uh after the trades already

[4:20:31] left and then they would unbox it and assemble it. The big difference is

[4:20:36] damage. >> Um Reform would [clears throat] find the

[4:20:40] damage before the installation date. They'd be able to order new pieces and

[4:20:45] get them uh delivered hopefully as close to the installation date as possible.

[4:20:50] And then that way we don't have to deal with that. The other ones would find it

[4:20:54] at the delivery date while they're trying to assemble it and then any

[4:20:58] damages we would have to wait for, you know, the four to six weeks in addition

[4:21:03] to get those items replaced and then assembled and put together. This is a

[4:21:08] resolution saying that the staff can work with free form as the selected

[4:21:12] contractor. There will be a future contract that will come in front of the

[4:21:17] city council to approve. So we're not authorizing staff to spend any money at

[4:21:22] this particular point in time. This is solely to direct staff to work with free

[4:21:27] form as the provide uh accepted contractor out of the three contractors.

[4:21:34] » Did the contractors provide um an estimate of how much?

[4:21:39] » Yes, all three all three came at close to the same price.

[4:21:46] They're a little different in pricing based off of the um the equipment that

[4:21:53] they're furnishing, but all of them came in at about the $300,000 price tag,

[4:21:58] which is what we asked us to stay within.

[4:22:02] » Comparable quality [clears throat] also.

[4:22:04] » Yes. And warranties are all comparable. um with Free Form, their warranties. If

[4:22:11] we have any problems with any of the furniture for the first 10 years, then

[4:22:15] we contact them. They order the parts. They come and assemble it. They come and

[4:22:20] do all of the work. We don't have to do any work on the furniture for the 10

[4:22:24] years that the warranty covers that. The chairs do not have a 10-year warranty.

[4:22:28] No chairs have a 10-year warranty, but they are willing to work with us on

[4:22:32] staff to also bring what they they called a chair rodeo where they bring in

[4:22:38] five chairs. Staff gets to pick their chair and we'll holster them all the

[4:22:43] same. [laughter] So, so you get what you want in that

[4:22:48] sense, but they look and they fit with [laughter] what's going on there. So

[4:22:52] that we don't have gaming chairs from Costco versus

[4:22:55] » you know other chairs >> like what we have today

[4:22:59] » a mix match of of everything. >> Was Free Form like the highest dollar?

[4:23:06] » No money. >> They were not. The highest dollar

[4:23:08] [clears throat] was one of the other companies that we waited until the

[4:23:12] beginning of August to get that. Their price range is between 250 and 310. Uh

[4:23:19] the other ones were 300, 310, 315. So yeah, this is a far better deal in price

[4:23:26] as well as in delivery. >> Okay,

[4:23:34] Mr. Mayor, [snorts] Mr. Sir

[4:23:39] make a motion. Okay. I move to approve and adopt the resolution for selecting

[4:23:44] Free Form as the furniture company to provide and install furniture for the

[4:23:48] new city hall project as presented. >> Second.

[4:23:54] » Made by Matt, seconded by Ken. Any further discussion?

[4:24:01] » Just want to note that the uh furniture committee seemed awfully PDheavy.

[4:24:07] » You're welcome. [laughter] Thank [gasps] you.

[4:24:11] » Back on those chairs. >> Yeah.

[4:24:13] » Yeah. They'll be the most comfortable chairs, right?

[4:24:16] » They sit on her butt more than [laughter]

[4:24:20] » Oh, Larry. Uh Loran, if you can take the please.

[4:24:26] [laughter] >> Hi.

[4:24:28] » Thank you. >> Sanders.

[4:24:32] » Uh I probably better say yes. [laughter] >> Yes.

[4:24:36] » Great. Um, moving on to item 8 I, consideration of transfer of funds to

[4:24:42] street improvements. >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to give some

[4:24:45] funds from our public works department under their salary and benefits line

[4:24:51] items because I want to reconstruct another street. So, that's what this

[4:24:56] pertains to. The other street will be in your next agenda item.

[4:24:59] » Have any money left at all, Chris? Or >> I'm trying to whittle her down.

[4:25:03] » Kevin just vampiring it all out of there. Oh, I got a few of my own. He's

[4:25:07] kind of psyched that we're redo. >> Yeah.

[4:25:11] » Awesome. >> Council questions.

[4:25:19] » Motion.

[4:25:31] » Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we consider the transfer of funds

[4:25:36] for to street improvement for the repaving of Tombstone Street between

[4:25:41] Meer Road and Flagstaff Street. >> Sorry. Authorize the

[4:25:46] » authorized. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh motion made. Is

[4:25:48] there a second? >> A second. Matt seconds.

[4:25:53] And any further discussion?

[4:25:58] » All right. You can take the role. >> Sanders.

[4:26:00] » Yes. Matt sir. >> Yes.

[4:26:03] » Owens. >> Yes.

[4:26:05] » Yes. [clears throat] >> All right. Moving on to item 8J. Uh also

[4:26:10] an action item. Consideration of award of contract with Liberty Landworks for

[4:26:13] Tombstone Street improvements. >> Mr. Mayor, this is me again as Larry

[4:26:17] Sto. We're looking to reconstruct Tombstone Street between Myer Road and

[4:26:23] Flagstaff Street. Uh we solicited uh three different cost proposals. um for

[4:26:31] this work because [clears throat] it was under the $250,000 threshold which is

[4:26:36] allowed by the Idaho procurement code. Um from that um Liberty Land Works

[4:26:42] turned in the lowest bid for that. Um their bid amount was for doing the base

[4:26:49] bid and the alternative bid number one was lower than my cost assessment. So

[4:26:53] see extremely pleased about that. Um, and we consider them to be a a

[4:27:00] responsive responsible uh contractor because they're doing washing street for

[4:27:04] us. So, we have some experience with them. Um, so with that, I'm looking for

[4:27:10] uh city council's authorization for Mayor Hodkins to sign the contract with

[4:27:16] Lwood Land Works for the reconstruction of Tup Street.

[4:27:19] » Stop estimating everything at a billion dollars, Kevin. Yeah, you [laughter]

[4:27:23] keep making yourself look good. There's always coming way.

[4:27:26] » I I I It's

[4:27:32] my trick, mayor. I >> Yeah, maybe council.

[4:27:36] » Sorry I stole your thing. >> No, you're good.

[4:27:38] » Nothing from Ken. Matt. >> Yeah.

[4:27:40] » Larry, any questions? >> I'm good. Thank you,

[4:27:42] » Laura. Is there a motion?

[4:27:50] Item dies for lack of a motion. [laughter]

[4:27:53] » Okay, I guess >> Larry

[4:27:55] » consideration I Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we consideration

[4:28:00] of the award of contract with Liberty Land Works for Tombstone Street

[4:28:04] Improvements >> and authoriz

[4:28:06] » authorizing >> authorizing the mayor to sign it.

[4:28:09] » Okay. Uh made is there a second? >> Second.

[4:28:13] » Matt seconded again. Further discussion

[4:28:18] Lauren, you can take the role. Sanders. >> Yes.

[4:28:21] » Matt sir. >> Yes.

[4:28:23] » Cowins. >> Yes.

[4:28:25] » Yes. >> Great. Uh, moving on to item 8K. Also an

[4:28:29] action item. Election of council president.

[4:28:32] » Mr. Mayor. Council. Now that we have a full council, it is time to elect the

[4:28:38] council president. The council president is elected by the council members only.

[4:28:42] So the mayor doesn't get to break a tie. Um, we need a council president so that

[4:28:47] in the case that Mayor Hodkins is unable to perform his duties, whether he's on

[4:28:52] vacation or uh, I don't know, sleeping at home instead of coming to counseling.

[4:28:58] U, >> is that an option?

[4:29:00] » Is that an option? [laughter] >> It would have been for me tonight.

[4:29:06] » But anyway, we need a council uh, president. So, please uh members of the

[4:29:11] council, if you could, uh select a member of your body to be the council

[4:29:16] president. Mr. Mayor. >> Okay.

[4:29:19] » Make a motion. >> As the most senior member of the

[4:29:23] council, I'd like to nominate Larry Sanders or council president. You

[4:29:27] » mean you mean the oldest? Well, >> more ways than one senior.

[4:29:35] » Is there a second?

[4:29:40] I'll second it, I guess. >> Larry seconds it.

[4:29:42] » This will be a tight. >> Uh, Laura, any further,

[4:29:49] » Larry? >> Well, it's really kind of a ineffective

[4:29:54] position. It's just a title more. >> I beg to differ, but yeah. Um, given the

[4:29:59] position I'm in now, uh, >> yeah. [laughter] Um

[4:30:05] uh I

[4:30:10] the consideration that I would give if I were in your place is stability of the

[4:30:16] council long term. Um to me it is who's going to be on council the longest and

[4:30:22] the reality is you know I I I think it would either be Ken or Matt.

[4:30:28] Actually, mayor council president changes every two

[4:30:32] years. So, it doesn't matter the longevity of

[4:30:34] » Did we change >> the council? Yeah, we did. Every

[4:30:37] election we reelect the council president, the council president can

[4:30:41] same, >> but every election it changes. It could

[4:30:44] change it. >> Does that mean it would change um in

[4:30:48] January 2028? >> Yes. Could be up for consideration in

[4:30:52] January 2020. >> So, either way, it would be revoted on.

[4:30:55] Okay. >> All right. Makes sense. You got three

[4:30:57] people for election next term anyway. >> Yeah.

[4:30:59] » Four. >> Four.

[4:31:00] » Four. >> Four.

[4:31:01] » Four. >> Mayor and three council.

[4:31:02] » Well, that's but by meant for council. >> Yeah.

[4:31:06] » Uh Matt, anything?

[4:31:09] » Uh, no. That's my question. The term length.

[4:31:11] » Ken

[4:31:14] R, you can take the role. >> Ken Owens.

[4:31:17] » Yes. >> Larry Sanders.

[4:31:19] » Yes. >> Laura Fuller.

[4:31:21] » Yes. >> Matt S.

[4:31:23] » Yes. All right. Motion passes. Congratulations, Larry.

[4:31:26] » Thank you. >> Moving on to item nine, staff reports.

[4:31:30] Starting with city administrator. >> Uh Mr. Mayor, for uh lack of a better

[4:31:35] way to say this, my staff report is in the packet. Do you have any questions?

[4:31:40] [laughter]

[4:31:42] » Can you read it to me?

[4:31:46] » During the past couple of weeks, [laughter]

[4:31:50] » I have a question. What's CBA EDC? Cordelane Area Economic Development

[4:31:55] Corporation. It's uh the organization within Kney County that works on

[4:32:01] development, our economic development. Uh we are a member of that organization

[4:32:06] and uh the mayor and myself are board members. One of us needs to go. I've

[4:32:13] always gone um the meetings at 7 o'clock in the morning on the first Tuesday of

[4:32:19] every month. and I've asked for an opportunity to make a presentation to

[4:32:23] them for House Bill 389. >> You were saying stability.

[4:32:31] » Leon, I I have a question just on your last bullet point without diving too

[4:32:35] deep. I'm just curious on how long how much time you spent on it with HR

[4:32:39] issues. So, out of the three weeks roughly, how many hours did you spend on

[4:32:42] that? >> I spent three full days on it.

[4:32:45] » Okay.

[4:32:48] » We've had uh disciplinary

[4:32:52] uh family medical leave act and we've had a couple other non big items that

[4:32:59] have come up but yes it's been a very big part of my time in the last couple

[4:33:04] weeks >> and if the council wanted more details

[4:33:06] that would have to be a future executive session.

[4:33:09] » Okay,

[4:33:13] any other questions? All right. Well, let's go ahead and move

[4:33:18] on to parks and recreation. Eric, thank you for waiting.

[4:33:22] » No, quite use line and [clears throat] just say my presentations in the packet

[4:33:28] if you guys have any questions. >> Great. Great job,

[4:33:32] » Terra. Agree. >> It was probably one of the best I've

[4:33:34] been to so far. >> Yeah, despite the smoke, it was pretty

[4:33:38] well attended. >> Do you want to thank Chief Haley and his

[4:33:42] officers? They were there all day and all night.

[4:33:47] » Thank you, Chief. >> I never saw him sit down once.

[4:33:51] [laughter]

[4:33:58] [laughter]

[4:34:01] » We ready? >> Police reporting.

[4:34:03] » Yes, sir. >> It's in I will say it's in the packet.

[4:34:09] Um, I'd happily answer any other questions, but uh, two things I want to

[4:34:13] highlight on the part one crimes. We are coming closer to evening that out uh,

[4:34:18] from that large increase that we had. Our increases still with our aggravated

[4:34:22] assaults, but our thefts are down significantly uh, which is starting to

[4:34:25] even some things out on those overall part one crimes. Part two crimes are up

[4:34:29] because our drug arrests and DUIs are significantly up over last year. is the

[4:34:35] uh thefts because word's getting out that

[4:34:38] they're not getting away with stealing things from super one and

[4:34:42] » I I can't I wish I could say but you have this amount of proactive work just

[4:34:47] in general it cuts down on the thefts that occur.

[4:34:50] » Good. >> So, um so that's the next thing I want

[4:34:53] to point out. Again, we're at a 93% increase in proactive work.

[4:34:56] » Yeah. >> So, continuing to to keep up that trend.

[4:34:59] Um it's impressive uh that they're maintaining that level. So very proud of

[4:35:04] them. Do a lot of great work. Again, like they were at the taste wrath. Uh

[4:35:08] yes, it was a good it was a good event and enjoyed myself too. So uh even the

[4:35:13] ash on my boots was good. So >> yeah, [laughter] a little smoky

[4:35:16] » little smoky, but overall very good. Uh yeah, the team's doing really good. Uh

[4:35:20] very very proud of what's going on. We have our drones operational um and

[4:35:24] getting two other guys certified to run those. So

[4:35:25] » perfect. Another one thing I just want to bring up talking about drones and

[4:35:29] officer Short. Well, that brings me to I just uh we have a Bitcoin account that

[4:35:33] just got $21,000 of victim's money back. Don't into it. So, Officer Short did a

[4:35:38] very good job on that along with some Spokane County detectives helped us out

[4:35:43] with that. So, >> I look forward to working through the

[4:35:46] whole legal stuff of getting that back to the victim. But the money's in our

[4:35:49] account, not the not the suspects. So, it's a really good thing. Speaking of

[4:35:54] the drones, I understand that the one of them has infrared.

[4:35:58] » Yep. Yep. We got one with the infrared, so it'll work at night, the heat

[4:36:01] seeeking as well. It also has a speaker that uh Officer Short has programmed

[4:36:06] multiple different uh statements uh towards myself that he played for me in

[4:36:11] my office. So, >> perfect. [laughter] Nice. Perfect.

[4:36:14] » What's the uh your most code enforcement? It went up 25%.

[4:36:20] Uh I would I don't actually have a great answer for you. Uh but just based upon

[4:36:26] what I'm seeing, so code enforcement, those also include all of our VIN

[4:36:30] inspections. Okay. >> And we are one of the top places for

[4:36:33] people coming to get their VIN inspections done because we still do

[4:36:35] them. Um so we handle them within the city limits. We will actually go out. Uh

[4:36:41] but if it's somebody from outside the city, if they bring it to us or if it's

[4:36:44] a larger one, we'll meet them at Bart. Um and we will still take care of those

[4:36:48] on a regular basis. So that is a very big uh portion of those calls. I do know

[4:36:52] that. >> Yeah.

[4:36:54] » So officer Vizichite or I can't pronounce his last name. He he's he was

[4:37:00] a lateral, correct? >> Uh no, Tyler was a uh an entry level. So

[4:37:05] he went down to our Meridian Academy. >> Okay.

[4:37:07] » Officer Bassic. Yeah. >> And and he is he full-blown on

[4:37:11] » Oh, yeah. He's been on his on his own. >> We do. We have two in the academy.

[4:37:14] » Two. We have two in the field training right now. They should be done by the

[4:37:19] middle to end of September and out on their own. We don't have any in the

[4:37:23] academy. We're not able to get a background done in time to get someone

[4:37:26] in this current academy. I still did go teach there today. So, it was good to

[4:37:30] see uh you know, we got a good group coming to

[4:37:32] » North Good deal. >> Yep. So, still plugging away. We got it.

[4:37:37] The applications are open. So, you know, anybody away

[4:37:43] » anything. [laughter] All right. >> I tried to keep it short to ask

[4:37:46] questions.

[4:37:50] Thank you, chief. >> Me in front of you now, so I can go

[4:37:53] home. [laughter] Eric, are you ready? Let's go.

[4:37:59] » Item 9D, public works, engineering. >> Uh, so like Leon said, I also have a

[4:38:06] staff report plus I do email out uh regular newsletters on major project

[4:38:12] updates. So, if you have any questions about any of those projects um or

[4:38:18] anything like that, uh feel free to ask. And

[4:38:20] » is the Meyer Road uh work estimated to be finished early?

[4:38:26] » Yes. >> Okay.

[4:38:27] » Yeah. Uh and mayor, I emailed you uh and said maybe pavement this Friday. It's

[4:38:35] going to be next Friday. Uh Solera's going to pour their curb and they want

[4:38:38] to have that concrete cure and then they'll come in and lay the asphalt.

[4:38:42] There was an outside chance that was going to happen, but it didn't

[4:38:45] [clears throat] end up working out that way. So, I might correct myself on that.

[4:38:48] » Yeah. And I've been noticing the uh substrate

[4:38:52] gently rising every day. I jog through there.

[4:38:55] » Oh, yeah. The stone will be done by well, tomorrow.

[4:38:59] » Now, instead of jumping off the curb, I get to step off.

[4:39:02] » We had one car jump into there. >> Yeah. And then

[4:39:07] » those road signs are optional. I Yeah. Anyway, um Yeah. And then the

[4:39:15] section that you messaged me about with the water and stuff. It's good. That's

[4:39:19] » I want to say I bet you Matt knows exactly where that ponding water is next

[4:39:23] to that car. >> Yep. I do.

[4:39:26] » Madam, do those newsletters that you send out,

[4:39:30] they come to our city emails. Are you able to send those out to a mailing list

[4:39:35] of of the people? Uh, I can't because I didn't have

[4:39:39] everybody's email address, but I could talk to Leon about that.

[4:39:42] » I I just heard feedback that no one knew that the roundabout on Lancaster was

[4:39:46] open early. >> Oh, okay.

[4:39:48] » And so then that opened up. >> Kidding.

[4:39:51] » What? I don't know how many people were driving.

[4:39:52] » They took all the signs. >> Yeah. Before it was even open. Yeah.

[4:39:55] [laughter] >> Some of them got the notice like before

[4:39:58] we knew it was [laughter] if you know what I mean.

[4:40:01] » I I I hear you. I heard it both ways, but I'm just curious if we put that

[4:40:04] information out. >> Yeah. Anytime we can enhance

[4:40:07] communication be great. Um some people don't necessarily like that uh advanced

[4:40:13] communication. We do put all that stuff on the website and do a lot of social

[4:40:17] media type pushes but and we have been updating more and more information on

[4:40:21] our website with our city news stuff. So if you have anybody that asks a question

[4:40:26] say the best place to go look for anything is the city's website.

[4:40:30] » Yep. Also, they can sign up to receive email notifications about all things.

[4:40:35] » Okay. Okay. >> Yeah.

[4:40:38] » Use our website and social media platform as an extra employee or an

[4:40:43] extra two employees to help communicate. >> All right. Yeah.

[4:40:48] » Uh I I saw a note Jake is now licensed for backflow assembly testing.

[4:40:53] » Is there a specific reason for that? Just so we can do our own or what? Um he

[4:40:58] is the only licensed backflow assembly tester that we have in the city of

[4:41:01] Raptor. And so now we have our own. Now we can continue testing our own. We

[4:41:06] don't have to hire a contractor like we did this year.

[4:41:09] » And Yep. So uh we Yep. We have one other employee that should be taking his test

[4:41:14] shortly. >> Okay. Awesome.

[4:41:17] » Any other questions on that one? Because I was going to talk about money.

[4:41:22] [laughter] >> Uh the truck search is going good. I

[4:41:25] should have news for you later.

[4:41:29] » What was the truck purchase in the budget thing? I saw

[4:41:33] » the snow from the snow plow savings. >> Snowplow savings.

[4:41:35] » Oh, okay. That was that one. >> Okay.

[4:41:38] » They're in they're in DOT inspection right now.

[4:41:40] » Oh, nice. >> Good. That was from Robos, I think,

[4:41:44] wasn't it? >> Cool.

[4:41:51] » All right, moving on to item 10. Visitors comments an opportunity to

[4:41:57] address concerns. No formal action allowed. Three minutes per issue. Issues

[4:42:02] may be placed on a subsequent agenda. No public comments may be made on land use

[4:42:05] items that we talked about tonight or in the future. Uh land use items include

[4:42:10] any item relating to a specific land use application or process that is governed

[4:42:14] by state code. Would anyone like to address the council? Rick, you have

[4:42:18] anything else? No, I talked to Leon about it and I'd

[4:42:22] like to talk to Ken afterwards.

[4:42:27] » Joe, you got anything for us? [laughter] >> Okay. Uh, all right. Moving on to

[4:42:33] uh item number 11, appointments and nominations. This is an action item,

[4:42:37] removal of appointment of Greg Mezer from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

[4:42:41] » Mr. Mayor, this is a a removal of appointment of Greg Mezer. does not

[4:42:46] qualify as a planning and zoning commissioner per city code. Um, this is

[4:42:52] an appointment removal. So, this is the mayor's request. Uh, per codes, the

[4:43:00] appointment removal has to be approved by three out of the four council, at

[4:43:04] least three out of the four council members, and the mayor cannot break the

[4:43:08] tie on this. The rest of it's up to you.

[4:43:14] So, where does that leave us on planning and zoning?

[4:43:16] » We will have three people and one applicant.

[4:43:21] » We do have an applicant >> that does not live in the city but is in

[4:43:24] the area of impact. >> Has he been a registered voter for two

[4:43:27] two years? >> Uh, I have not checked that yet.

[4:43:30] » Okay. >> Hope so.

[4:43:32] » I would I would [laughter] hope so.

[4:43:38] » Any other questions? I'd like to make a motion approving the

[4:43:43] removal of the appointment of Greg Mezer from the planning and zoning commission.

[4:43:47] » Second made and seconded. Any further discussion?

[4:43:53] » Loren, you can take the role. >> Could I Sorry.

[4:43:57] » Um, we I realize he's out of compliance, but

[4:44:02] can we get by with three people? Well, they only meet once a month, right? When

[4:44:07] when is that? Three is the minimum. That's right.

[4:44:10] » That's Yeah. I'm just Okay. >> So, we need to get

[4:44:14] » We need more people. >> We want five. Yeah.

[4:44:16] » So, when do they meet? Once a month. >> Yeah.

[4:44:18] » Once a month. >> On the third Wednesday of every

[4:44:21] » third Wednesday. So, next Wednesday. Okay. All right. All right. That's a

[4:44:25] good question. >> If you know anybody, tell them to apply

[4:44:27] on the website, please. Um >> and I put a notice on the website asking

[4:44:33] for volunteer. >> Yeah.

[4:44:36] Uh, one one could argue >> that you would qualify. [laughter]

[4:44:41] Lauren, >> I could

[4:44:43] » just saying just saying. >> Laura Fer,

[4:44:45] » hi. >> Matt sir.

[4:44:47] » Hi. >> Owens.

[4:44:49] » Hi. >> Yes.

[4:44:52] » All right. Motion passes. Uh, moving on to item number 12, council

[4:44:58] announcements. Laura, >> I wanted to announce that a couple weeks

[4:45:02] ago I met with Eric. Um, we met with a Ratham resident who has been um very

[4:45:10] into um community improvement projects with cleaning up the city, providing

[4:45:15] native plants. We met together. Uh we I had an idea a few months ago about um u

[4:45:23] making improvements at the Chinese cemetery in Rathum. I had an idea about

[4:45:28] putting up a plaque with historical information and I mentioned that he had

[4:45:34] some ideas about putting some native plants in there that were low water

[4:45:39] maintenance [laughter]

[4:45:41] » and he uh so we're we're working on that together as as that project and it's

[4:45:47] it's very exciting. >> I saw that on

[4:45:50] » that's awesome. Yeah. >> Yeah.

[4:45:52] » Working on some other projects. >> Anything else

[4:45:55] » Laura? >> Nope.

[4:45:56] Larry, >> you know, I have a whole list of stuff,

[4:46:00] but I it's in the packet. [laughter]

[4:46:07] » Matt, >> um, yeah, one thing that I wanted to

[4:46:11] kind of bring up and potentially add as an item on the um, future meetings is,

[4:46:16] uh, some sort of kind of self-review system for appointed officials. Uh I

[4:46:22] would love to kind of understand how the appointed officials see uh themselves

[4:46:27] and and how where they can see improvement with themselves uh their

[4:46:31] positions and with the city. So I'd like to add that to a future agenda item.

[4:46:35] » Yep. Absolutely. I like that idea.

[4:46:40] Um Ken

[4:46:43] happy to be here. >> Um I just wanted to thank Eric again. I

[4:46:48] I really think Taste Wrath went really well. Really appreciate it. I don't

[4:46:52] think I heard any major complaints. I know we had a couple of vendors pull out

[4:46:56] and we had one vendor just happened to be my nephew, by the way, parked way out

[4:47:01] on a hill out there, but um he he had a great time. You know, everybody had a

[4:47:07] great time. I think it it went off really well. Food was good. We had a

[4:47:10] good um variety of vendors this year. Um, you know, I've talked to several

[4:47:14] local business owners that would love to participate, but you know, the problem

[4:47:18] being they don't have trucks. They don't have, you know, the ability to get out

[4:47:22] there. So, I don't know if there's something we can do with the pavilion

[4:47:24] that would allow them to have warmers and things like that in there that they

[4:47:28] might be able to utilize in the future. But

[4:47:32] » biggest hurdle is we have a lot of power out there, but that's our biggest hurdle

[4:47:36] is lack of power. Um, it's all kind of located in one spot. It'd be nice if it

[4:47:43] was spread out around the park, >> but

[4:47:46] » yeah, >> that's why the new city hall was

[4:47:48] designed lots more out.

[4:47:53] » I got one more thing. >> Oh, go ahead, Laura. Uh I

[4:47:58] I know these this meeting is so long. So I was wondering if it would be possible

[4:48:03] for the parks and recck reporting or police reporting in cases that they

[4:48:07] could give their reporting before everything so that they don't have to

[4:48:11] stay around here. >> We did talk about that at a staff

[4:48:14] meeting and I [laughter] I think the general consensus was no.

[4:48:20] I I just felt like it it made sense, but I I don't know what the reasons for not

[4:48:27] being that way would be. >> Well, we needed Kevin in almost every

[4:48:31] one of our action items. >> Unless I move forward.

[4:48:34] » I'm talking about parks and police. >> Yeah.

[4:48:37] » I I I think it's worth consideration. Maybe at the next staff we can discuss

[4:48:41] it further. >> I think we just should have shorter

[4:48:46] meetings and it wouldn't matter. Uh well, you know, and I I'll tell you,

[4:48:51] Larry, I'm I'm for it, but we're going to have to have one every week then.

[4:48:55] » I know. I understand. >> All right. Uh without further city

[4:49:00] business before us, we are adjourned. >> Oh, and Matt, I just wanted to bring

[4:49:04] your attention. You were appointed. You were appointed. She was a captain. So,

[4:49:09] I'm going to review. Oh, no. [laughter] >> Yeah.

[4:49:13] » That's what you get for drinking. >> You can review me all you want.

[4:49:15] Absolutely. There's one way to get rid of me and you know what that is. So,

[4:49:20] » good luck getting that. >> Yeah, exactly.

August 12 2026 City Council Meeting

Transcript